I have personally experienced nearly being killed by the excesses of the collusion between industry and the military, a la the V-22 Osprey. I was forced to use this platform despite its limitations in theater, and due to various reasons I can't discuss, I feel it was responsible for nearly getting myself and my men killed. Yet, top brass shoves down the throats of career-minded subordinate commanders that it is a sound platform, with dog and pony shows put on toward "proving" that.&
Why would the Marine Corps need a VTOL (Verticle Take-Off and Landing) F-35 variant? To replace an aging Harrier as a close air support platform is the official line. The real reason why is the protect the Marine Corps' raison d'etre; amphibious warfare, also largely an anachronism - a divorce from the Navy and its carrier fleet with platforms that can provide the same capabilities (the F-18). The result is an engineering dud if you are talking 5th generation air war against a near-peer. This bureaucratic infighting with expensive consequences is repeated many times over with all sorts of major and minor end systems.Go to the Atlantic to read the entire article (its discussing the F-35), but get past the controversial airplane and get a feel for the sentiment.
I told ya so.
Service members are pissed! They're seeing waste, abuse, corruption and a weakening of America's defenses. Each and everyone has a different solution to the problem. Some say to keep the course. Others like the Marine Captain want to tear the entire house down.
If I was advising General Dunford, our current Commandant, the first thing I would tell him is that HE MUST rebuild trust between the leaders and the led. The strain of what everyone sees as a war without end is starting to show. The cracks have been there but unnoticed by many. I fear we're about to see an eruption unless action is taken...and quickly.
While it is possible that he represents a common sentiment, take anything a Captain says with a grain of salt. The Marine Corps increased to 202,000 recruiting many officers below the usual expectations. That group is now Captains, which is the rank most over and the rank being separated fastest. He may be part of this underperforming separating group which is why he did not identify himself or his career track. Always be skeptical of those getting fired
ReplyDeletei've got bad news for you then. pick up the latest copy of Marine Corps Times. they're talking about an end to the separations and almost 80% of the buckaroo's getting the career designator!
Deletei don't know if thats a historical average but i know that as late as 2004 it wasn't that high.
DeleteYou're right about the rate going back up. It was 50 or so for Ground Combat MOS'es which were the most overinflated in the increase to 202k (because the air side did not increase the number of aircraft in the plus up).
ReplyDeleteEven in recessions like 2008/2009, separating Captains were getting great civilian sector offers. This group of Captains is not because neither the Marine Corps or anyone else thinks they are up to par. The last of the substandard plus up personnel should be out by the end of this year. That explains the increasing retention which will still be below 80 percent for Ground Combat.
04 was the time of legends: those staying in were Chontoshes and those getting out were Nathaniel Ficks and Brian Stans (Stan was a year or 2 behind, but part of the same group). Not comparing, but the bar was set high in 04
ReplyDeleteright you are but the effort was to maintain the standards that had already been established. a few short years later and change is the buzzword and the results have beeen dramatic. i dare not list all the issues in the open, from officer selection, to retention, to inflated evals but i think you get where i'm coming from.
Deleteyou just reminded me of something. Chontosh should be picking up Colonel but I see he punched out. what happened there? did he just burn out, opportunities? you just listed three surefire Colonels (at least...i still marvel that Fox never pinned on) that the Corps couldn't keep in house. pity.
DeleteInteresting coincidence. 2004 being one of the greatest USMC victories in recent history: Fallujah II.
DeleteChontosh didn't play nice with others is what I heard. Talked to some guys who he spoke to, he apparently has/had no love lost for the individuals in Quantico and DC.
Deletethat's too bad. he was being lined up for great things.
Delete@ Eric: just out of curiosity, regarding Fallujah II, were you being serious or just taking the piss ? Yes the operation was successful and the Marines involved performed their duty with the resolve and determination one would expect, but calling this "one of the greatest USMC victories" (in recent history, I agree), no disrespect to those involved, but Fallujah is not eaxctly on same par as Bois Belleau, Saipan, guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Inchon, Chosin Reservoir, to name but a few. Don't mean to take anything away from those who took part, but, let's be honest, Fallujah will never be on same level as those battles fought and won (except Chosin maybe) by the USMC.
Delete"If I was advising General Dunford, our current Commandant, the first thing I would tell him is that HE MUST rebuild trust between the leaders and the led."
ReplyDeleteStripes, Oct 17, 2014
Dunford takes over for Amos as commandant of the US Marine Corps
WASHINGTON — Gen. Joseph Dunford became the 36th commandant of the Marine Corps on Friday, as Gen. James Amos closed the curtain on his controversial tenure.
Dunford takes over at a time of transition for the Marine Corps, and he faces significant challenges, from maintaining combat readiness to looming budget cuts.
“My focus in the coming years will be to take care of our Marines and their families and to ensure that our corps remains the expeditionary force in readiness that our nation has come to expect,” he said during the ceremony at the Marine Barracks in Washington.
Marine Manpower does an excellent job of promoting, retaining, and assigning to billets the most qualified Marines. This applies to Commandants also. No one becomes Commandant without deep respect and widespread support and that was true for Amos (who had to deal with the challenges of the post 202k Marine Corps) and Dunford. There are always going to be a small group of critics who magazines like the Atlantic are very happy to provide with a platform to make them heard as they are on their way out.
ReplyDeletewait! really? seriously?
DeleteSol,
DeleteI'm non service myself, but I have people I'm close to in the corps. My heart breaks and my blood pressure skyrockets when he tells me about his experiences day to day in the corps!
Honestly the biggest reason we aren't already seeing our troops ready to say no mas en masse has more to do with the institutional ENCOURAGEMENT of ignorance on basic martial subjects, history, equipment, weapons, tactics, techniques, and procedures of even other parts of our own military! You can sell a lot of BS to mushroom people (fed S**T and kept in the dark!)
It's a sad state of affairs.... And it's going to cost lives! The reality is even if we did have top notch personnel our equipment supply system and bureaucracy would still fatally hobble us in a true near peer confrontation.
I mean just look at the totally effed up mess that is the gear situation for things like the basic combat ensemble! Really what our guys get is just enough to encourage them to spend a chunk of their pay every month buying a less schizophrenic gear array. Which is not accidental!
Here is my take on the civil military divide:
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with the general public not having a clue what the military is up to. We are a republic and not having a clue what the military does on a daily basis is your right as a citizen.
Furthermore I would argue that the general public knows more about the military than they do most of the rest of the federal government. Does anyone have any clue what the department of transportation does on a daily basis, or EPA, NOAA, FBI, Secret Service, NSA, GSA, DEA and so on? There are so many federal agencies that most of the public do not know that this agency even exists, much less what it does.
The only civil military divide that we need to worry about is between the elected leaders, civilian appointees, and the military.
you know what i find interesting? the fact that the critique of the Marine Corps by a serving officer (if he actually is a Marine) not at all surprising. you focused on the civil military divide. from a sea services perspective thats the lowest of the low hanging fruit in the article. have you heard this type of talk in low whispers in your corner of the O'Club?
DeleteThe perspective runs the complete gamut. Some are fully supportive and find the MV-22B and F-35B, to name two platforms, to be completely necessary and will be wonderful additions to the MAGTF. I have heard many argue the MV-22 to be a death trap but that is based deaths during development, something was over a decade ago now. My complaint with the MV-22 is based on initial purchase cost, reliability, operating restrictions, and operating cost. However, unless you are doing maintenance in the wing most officer's do not have a clue about these numbers.
DeleteHowever, the majority of officers in my peer group play the "above my pay grade" card and carry on with the plan of the day. Nowhere on the FITREP is a marking for great strategic thinker, instead you are rated on your ability to be a company commander, S-3A, S-4, OSO, series commander, and so on. Most guys would rather talk about the NFL playoffs than the capabilities and limitation of the MV-22B and the implications for USMC doctrine. That is something for the "50lb brains" or something to argue in the school house.
That is one of the saddest things I've read in a long time. If you can't talk about issues openly and critically within an organization, that organization is doomed.
DeleteDo you think they prefer to avoid serious, complicated issues for fear of backlash or a sense of futility?
@Paralus
DeleteI'd say that talking about issues openly and critically within any organization, particularly military, is rather rare.
I beg to differ regarding which divide should be worried about and which not ... if you care only about the divide among the "elites" of your country (wether political, military or civilian govt), you heading into a direction where lack of interest among general population (ie citizens) can have dangerous consequences for the country in general ... we can already see some clues of what may be possible in a (not so) distant future with the militarization of police departments all over the US.. Leaving it up to a tiny minority of people to decide the fate and actions of the country, and letting a small percentage of the population carry the burden that such action induces in the long run, could be seen as a risk for democracy itself. There are certainly different perspectives and takes on this argument, but one shouldn't underestimate possible long term consequences. It's not without reason that George Washington was against the idea of large standing armies and much more in favour of a militia system (second amendment, remember: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") ... Now i realize times have changed and the requirements regarding armed forces are totally different today, but when you come to think that disarming the citizenry could be interpreted as a first step towards military rule, and looking at some paramilitary police work being done recently in the US, one could certainly conjure up images not dissimilar to those of the dying Republic of Rome. I'm not saying this the way we're heading, just that we can't pretend we didn't know ...
Delete"The strain of what everyone sees as a war without end is starting to show. The cracks have been there but unnoticed by many. I fear we're about to see an eruption unless action is taken...and quickly. "
ReplyDeleteFood for thought , at the sunset of British Empire , they also got involved in many many small wars (police actions) that drained resources (manpower and treasury)..
Reading the comments of that article i found this powerful sobering piece by Stephen Specht a veteran
ReplyDeletehttp://stevenspecht.com/uncategorized/if-you-want-to-thank-me-for-service/
"It angers me to the point of an ulcer." Stephen Specht, who served in the Air Force from 2006 to 2010, writes:
I suppose I come from a military family as most of the males and at least one female has served in the armed forces, but I don't really think of it as an obligation to family history so much as an obligation as a citizen.
The constant prattle of "first, I want to thank you for your service" angers me to the point of an ulcer. Normally I just mutter a thank you and go on ordering my coffee, but deep down I feel a seething anger of wanting to ask them precisely what they want to thank me for.
The anger came to a head this most recent Veterans Day when I was asked to come to a Veterans Day event held by a local lawyers organization. (I am a vet and a law student). I wrote the following piece titled "If You Want to Thank Me for My Service." I think it captures some of the substance of what you speak of.
An opinion from Carl Forsling--"The Real Reason For The Poor State Of Military Morale" (excerpt)
ReplyDelete"...The key factor is senior leadership that has not kept faith with its troops. The rest of the force that doesn’t live within the Washington, D.C., beltway feels that it is being ridden hard and put back wet so that the generals and admirals can claim success before civilian leaders in Congress and the White House. They have come to believe that they are expendable.
"There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Even after taking away the burden of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the security requirements of the United States have not decreased in proportion with the downsizing of the force. As recently retired Marine General James Amos said, “We will not do less with less. We will do the same with less.” As powerful as generals are, they can’t repeal mathematics. That difference isn’t coming out of nowhere. It’s coming at the expense of personnel, equipment, and training. Today, units have to swap equipment just to deploy; new personnel go forward with inadequate training; and stateside support units, such as depots and training facilities, have to support deploying units with people and equipment. The military is like a subsistence farmer who’s eating his seed corn — it works for awhile, but a reckoning is coming."
Not getting into the specifics of the points raised in the article/letter published by The Atlantic, although I feel a certain sense of familiarity with the kind of problems and ego conflicts that might be playing a role in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteWould just like to comment on the military/civilian divide. It haas been mentioned that in a Republic, it's a citizen's right not to be informed about things relating to the military. Now that may certainly be true in a certain environment (i.e. The USA), it is by no means a universal truth. In the Republic i'm a citizen of, it's a duty as well as necessity for a citizen to be informed up to a certain degree ...
Regarding the US in particular, there is a need for a more general interest into how US foreign and defense policy is being conducted, because being interested in the "res publica" was part of the Republic the Founding Fathers had in mind, especially in times when there still was a militia system. Same rationale goes for draftees up until late 60s. You never know when you may need to reintroduce the draft ... There had been rumors about plans going that direction at a certain point around 2005-2006.
One thing one should be concerned about the growing divide between military and civilian and lack of interest for anything pertaining to the military is that the burden of US defense policy and action rests on a fraction of the population that is getting ever smaller. Consequence being not only that the rest of the population and citizens dont really care, unless a huge media campaign is started about lack of care for injured veterans for example, but the other risk that grows over the long run is the emergence of a new class of citizens - high ranking members of the armed forces, + active military and their families - with a strong "esprit de corps" and a certain propensity to follow a charismatic leader (if there was one) whose propostion might be to "save the Republic" from the ennemies within, at a certain point in time. Not tommorrow of course, but you never know. Once you get over the Rubicon, there's no turning back. And the militarization of US policy ever since the early 50s is a fact nobody can ignore.