SIR, WHO AM I? - - - The article was a setup...they planned this all along (warning-MUCH bitching and whining!)

 via War On The Rocks

However, with the end of major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – focused primarily on counterinsurgency – and the return to great power conflict, our Marine Corps has now adopted many disparate identities, while retaining one major antiquated one, in an attempt to remain relevant. This fact was highlighted by the Senate draft language of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which openly questioned the direction of the Marine Corps.

&

 At Headquarters Marine Corps, I have heard and read a dizzying array of what we are doing, pursuing, and becoming to validate those Senate Armed Services Committee concerns. Not much of it is coherent: general purpose force, expeditionary advanced base operations force, paced against a specific threat, no pacing threat, applicable to all combatant commands, urban/megacities, jungle, sea control, forcible entry operations, amphibious, expeditionary, naval, crisis responders, contact force, blunt force, surge force, heavy, light, etc. I could go on, but it’s starting to feel absurd. This list does not denote complexity, but multiple personality disorder. The sheer number and conflicting nature of these identities is unsustainable and only mortgages the future effectiveness of the Marine Corps in the defense of America.

I pose a single question to drive our identity: Are we naval in character or purpose? If it’s the former, then we can continue to be anything we want and just continue using funny words for windows, walls, and water fountains. We can continue to say we’re naval yet be a second land army instead of opening landward options for the joint force. We can fight in megacities despite the fact that the Second Battle of Fallujah required the equivalent combat power of a Marine division to control a five-square mile city against 4,500 insurgents. We can continue to train in Norway for an arctic/mountain fight against Russia or North Korea without programs of record for squad stoves or over-the-snow vehicles. We can continue with the idea of the Marine Corps as a middleweight force, while maintaining tank battalions and procuring bigger and heavier vehicles – such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and Amphibious Combat Vehicle. We can continue to incur opportunity costs with standing, crisis response Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTF) for Africa and the Middle East. And we can continue to operate, preaching that the infantry is the basis for the organization with the rest of the MAGTF in support, all the while spending exponentially more on other elements of the MAGTF aside from the infantry. And, if we do this, we will continue our march to irrelevance and eventual extinction.

Here 

We got ambushed folks.

They did it right in front of our faces and we didn't see it coming. It was a classic L-shaped ambush and the Marine Corps as we know it isn't just dying.

It's dead and just doesn't know it.

Read the entire article.  Check out the bullet points.  Go thru your mental database and compare it to what we've seen.

Now check out a few tidbits I've seen over the last few days....

The nation can keep its Marine Corps without maintaining it as a separate service.https://t.co/P8vHZQVEsd

— U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) December 8, 2021

Berger: I’ll accept a smaller Marine Corps to make light amphibs happen https://t.co/td2V920dCG pic.twitter.com/bfhZ85WJWd

— Defense News (@defense_news) December 8, 2021

Marine Corps Infantry Dilemma | Lucas Wood at @NavalInstitute #Proceedings https://t.co/nwN2iZvvm8

— RealClearDefense (@RCDefense) October 23, 2020

The terrible pain?

We were taken down by a few Judas' in our own ranks.

The US Army is about to slam into the Pacific and continue with its traditional roles WITHOUT tearing itself apart or flirting with useless soul searching.

It's been a good run but my previous prediction is about to come true.

The author of piece wanting to slice apart the Marine Corps laid out how it should go (I now consider this the best case scenario).

The U.S. public is far less likely to accept the complete disappearance of the Fleet Marine Forces, the ubiquitous “Mud Marine.” Stripped of aviation, the Marine Corps would resemble the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps, both in size (approximately 88,000 troops) and capabilities—both are light infantry, both are air-mobile, and both are capable of airborne and amphibious operations. Both consider themselves to be “elite” forces with strong esprit de corps. Transition of the Fleet Marine Forces into the Army’s yet-to-be created XIX Marine Amphibious Corps would retain the needed amphibious expertise, simplify the chain of command, and could be done in a way that retains many of the unique elements that make a Marine a Marine.

Establishing the Army’s XIX Marine Amphibious Corps at Camp Pendleton on the west coast would give the nation a light infantry “center of excellence” on each coast. Reducing the Marine Corps Commandant to a three-star general, mirroring the XVIII Corps commander, would help reduce the gradual increase in rank structure seen over the past 50 years across the Department of Defense (DoD). Army traditions are likely flexible enough to retain many of the cherished Marine Corps’ accoutrement, like the dress blues and the eagle, globe and anchor emblem. The Army airborne troops currently have their maroon berets and cavalry units have their cowboy hats and spurs. Also, if the XVIII Corps can informally use the term “top” for the command first sergeant, the XIX Corps might well use “gunny” for E-7s. Likewise, young men and women could enlist to be Marines and continue to go through Parris Island for boot camp.

Incorporating the Marine Corps into the Army would significantly simplify the DoD chain of command and eliminate the need for the Commandant to go to the Army and beg for future armor and artillery support. Likewise, the Marines of the XIX Corps would have an equal chance of obtaining any new capabilities integrated into the Army, while potentially allowing Army leaders to reduce the operational tempo of both Corps, although both will still be rapid-deployment units.

To say that Marines would resist incorporation into the Army and Navy is a gross understatement. However, there are concessions that might make it slightly less toxic for the Marines and less objectionable to the public and Congress. Allowing Marine fixed-wing pilots inducted into the Navy to finish out their career using Marine Corps ranks and uniforms would likely help and given the Navy’s history of mixed uniforms, would probably go unnoticed by the public. Similar concessions for the generation of current Marines incorporated into the Army could potentially ease their transition. 

It's amazing.

The only piece of the Army I ever wanted was Ranger School. At least future Marines (regardless of rank or MOS) will get the chance to get jump wings, Ranger school and to do other cool stuff.

I consider that a silver lining in all this.

Oh and if you doubt the end of the Corps then read what Berger said one more time.

"He's willing to accept a smaller Marine Corps to pay for new amphibious ships".

The door is being opened for the accountants to walk in.  The Marine Corps will be fewer than 100K by 2030.

It's almost a certainty now.

One thing bothers me.  How long has this been in the planning? Changes this drastic with such little pushback never happen in a vacuum.  I'm almost positive that think tanks, prior Commandants, certain Colonels and Generals (active and retired) were all in on the planning on this.

Did they realize this would be the outcome?  Is this the desired endstate?

I just don't know anymore.