Tim Barrack's article on Force Design 2030 deserves careful study. It is a MUST READ!

 This bubba is the only person that has laid out a balanced view of Berger's concept.  A few things stand out and I'll try and touch on them all.  Time is short and I gotta get out to the range and get a quick workout in so I'll circle back to them (the idea that Mattis is the impetus of this concept ... or so we're told ...yet he's signed on to thinking that Berger went to far deserves its own blog post) later, but this part should spark a great deal of discussion.

 Is the Marine Corps optimized to be a 9-1-1 force or to be a stand-in force versus China? Can the two be the same? (my answer is no!) And if the argument is that they are the same, then why is crisis response not even mentioned in the concept? (because Berger doesn't give a FUCK about crisis response!) These questions undoubtedly run through their minds. The recent ending of rotational crisis response forces in combat commands outside of the Pacific further reinforce this concern.

This venerated group of critics knows the threats and challenges. Their advocacy is based on the idea that the Marine Corps must remain a general-purpose force that can flex to all threats and not be optimized for just one threat and mission. They are struggling to reconcile how the Marine Corps maintains its legacy as a 9-1-1 force while optimizing to a stand-in force concept applicable to a narrow set of conditions, albeit ones deemed critical to national strategy.

Here 

I contend that Berger doesn't give a rats ass about being America's 9-1-1 force.  He doesn't care about forcible entry. He doesn't give a fuck about being shock troops.

He only cares about China and the Indo Pacific.

Furthermore I believe that he will gladly sacrifice the future of what we knew as the Marine Corps to get his bastard child birthed.

The curious thing?

The Navy will focus on the sea battle and will get around to providing ships for Berger's concept when they get to it but battle force ships will have priority.

With the current budget it was gonna be a scramble for resources.  The Army owns land combat and is posturing to aid the sea battle.  They'll get their slice.  The Air Force will assist the Navy in the air war and will conduct anti-shipping strikes. They're good to go too.  The Navy (although slow to move) is the lead service when it comes to fighting in the vast reaches of that region.  They're naturally gonna get a plus up.

Berger by shedding roles and functions has hamstrung the former Marine Corps (I SO FUCKING WISH HE WOULD REBRAND THE ORGANIZATION) and violated the rule of the Pentagon.

He is trying to do it within current budgets.

That's almost childishly stupid when it comes to the Washington DC turf battles.

He was a terrible change agent.  He's only added friction when a steady hand was needed.  He's myopic to the point of arrogance, and he won't consider outside counsel.

I'm calling it now.

He's failed commandant number 3.

Amos was horrible.

Neller was a joke.

Berger is just fucking lost.