I stand corrected on my critique of the Planning Guidance...I'll stand pat and wait for more info...

A snippet of a note I received today...

There's no interest in this SOF support mission, seaborne 101st, or ranger/whatever.

The movement is now to focus on how to destroy the Chinese. If we can fight China, we can fight anyone smaller. Part of fighting China is seeing the sea as terrain to be dominated vice transmitted. With amphibious landed long range fires and effective AA, the Marine Corps can clear paths for the Navy and allow them to get nice and tight to China. Allowing the AF to handle the deep air fight. The CMC is against the light carrier concept (he is against building more CVLs). The America Class with no well deck is loathed in the fleet and amongst logisticians. It's a stupid ship and I can't find any navy officers that like it either. I doubt we build another.

Full naval integration hasn't been done since the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols act, the CMC wants to train us as naval personnel, not a second land army (remember the old FMF school!? That might come back). Berger took a shit on a bunch of sacred cows and I think it was for the better. It's time for the Marine Corps to go back to sea.

No.  I will not provide details of this Marine's personal bio/info. 

I will say this.

I HAPPILY stand corrected.  I laid out a few concerns with the Planning Guidance and where it was taking us.  It's addressed above and the reason for the concern was that I worried we were returning to some of the old concepts/ideas that have been floated over the past decade.

I DO remember the old FMF school.  I DO remember ship board detachments.  I DO like the idea of taking a huge/massive dump on sacred cows.

But I want to know more!