Wokeness is ruining America's military, & I suspect it's intentional

L

Legion

Oderint dum metuant
c2UuanBn


YOU HEARD THE MAN, GENERAL. DO AS HE COMMANDS​




Deference to senior command is a hard-wired tradition in elite military organizations, and nowhere was that tradition more honored than in the U.S. Marine Corps.

But what happens if a policy coming from the top of the chain of command is insufficiently tested or intrinsically flawed?

Where is it written that a subordinate can set aside deference and demand a second look?

For more than two years many of the Marine Corps’ finest have struggled with this dilemma as they quietly discussed a series of fundamental changes ordered, and in some cases already implemented, by Gen. David "Ham" Berger, the current commandant.

Among Marines there are serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapon systems and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios.

And it is unclear to just about everyone with experience in military planning what formal review and coordination was required before "Ham" Berger unilaterally announced a policy that would alter so many time-honored contributions of the Marine Corps.

The unique and irreplaceable mission of the Marine Corps is to provide a homogeneous, all-encompassing “force in readiness” that can go anywhere and fight anyone on any level short of nuclear war.

The corps has fought many political battles to preserve that mission but never from within—until now.

Among other decisions, "Ham" Berger’s “Force Structure 2030” plan includes these provisions:

Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.

• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.

• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.

• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”

• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.

• Elimination of three of the current 17 medium tilt-rotor squadrons, three of the eight heavy-lift helicopter squadrons, and “at least” two of the seven light attack helicopter squadrons, which were termed “unsuitable for maritime challenges.”
















https://www.wsj.com/articles/momentous-changes-in-the-marine-corps-deserve-debate-reduction-david-berger-general-11648217667
 
I may be going out on a limb here, but ... I think the US Military knows what they need more than Legion. Just an opinion.
 
Legion said:
Legion didn't write the report. Just a fact.
Click to expand...

'Machines' are fighting the Wars now. There won't be any mass Landings at Iwo Jima anymore where 7,000 American kids are fed into the MeatGrinder.
Notice Russia pulverizing Ukraine from thousands of miles*away with missiles? Notice what Ukraine is demanding? Planes.
 
Jack said:
'Machines' are fighting the Wars now. There won't be any mass Landings at Iwo Jima anymore where 7,000 American kids are fed into the MeatGrinder. Notice Russia pulverizing Ukraine from thousands of miles*away with missiles? Notice what Ukraine is demanding? Planes.
Click to expand...

I think the US military knows what they need more than Jack.

After several unsuccessful attempts by senior officers to engage in a quiet dialogue with "Ham" Berger, the gloves have now come off. The traditional deference has been replaced by a sense of duty to the Marine Corps and its vital role in our national security. Recently, 22 Marine generals signed a nonpublic letter of concern to "Ham" Berger, and many others have stated their support of the letter.

A daily working group that includes 17 generals has been formed to communicate concerns to national leaders. One highly respected three-star general estimated that “the proportion of retired general officers who are gravely concerned about the direction of the Corps in the last two and a half years would be above 90 percent".
 
Legion said:
I think the US military knows what they need more than Jack.

After several unsuccessful attempts by senior officers to engage in a quiet dialogue with "Ham" Berger, the gloves have now come off. The traditional deference has been replaced by a sense of duty to the Marine Corps and its vital role in our national security. Recently, 22 Marine generals signed a nonpublic letter of concern to "Ham" Berger, and many others have stated their support of the letter.

A daily working group that includes 17 generals has been formed to communicate concerns to national leaders. One highly respected three-star general estimated that “the proportion of retired general officers who are gravely concerned about the direction of the Corps in the last two and a half years would be above 90 percent".
Click to expand...

Bummer. Lots of 'Generals' ... no JarHeads to command. :(
 
Jack said:
Bummer. Lots of 'Generals' ... no JarHeads to command.
Click to expand...

There is not much time to stop the potential damage to our national security. Questions should be raised. The law does not give the commandant of the Marine Corps carte blanche.
 
Legion said:
There is not much time to stop the potential damage to our national security. Questions should be raised. The law does not give the commandant of the Marine Corps carte blanche.
Click to expand...

Bringing this important matter up on JPP will certainly get the attention of the President and Military Command. Good Work, Legion. (sigh) If we only had more like you!


:smh:
 
Jack said:
Bringing this important matter up on JPP will certainly get the attention of the President and Military Command. Good Work, Legion. (sigh) If we only had more like you!
Click to expand...

The risk involved in a restructuring of this scale should have required full consideration and debate in such Pentagon offices as the Defense Resources Board, then a formal approval by the defense secretary before being sent to the White House for further review, and then extensive oversight hearings in Congress.
 
Legion said:
The risk involved in a restructuring of this scale should have required full consideration and debate in such Pentagon offices as the Defense Resources Board, then a formal approval by the defense secretary before being sent to the White House for further review, and then extensive oversight hearings in Congress.
Click to expand...

Golly Darn! Why no one listens to you is a mystery!



:idonteven:
 
Legion said:
c2UuanBn


YOU HEARD THE MAN, GENERAL. DO AS HE COMMANDS​




Deference to senior command is a hard-wired tradition in elite military organizations, and nowhere was that tradition more honored than in the U.S. Marine Corps.

But what happens if a policy coming from the top of the chain of command is insufficiently tested or intrinsically flawed?

Where is it written that a subordinate can set aside deference and demand a second look?

For more than two years many of the Marine Corps’ finest have struggled with this dilemma as they quietly discussed a series of fundamental changes ordered, and in some cases already implemented, by Gen. David "Ham" Berger, the current commandant.

Among Marines there are serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapon systems and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios.

And it is unclear to just about everyone with experience in military planning what formal review and coordination was required before "Ham" Berger unilaterally announced a policy that would alter so many time-honored contributions of the Marine Corps.

The unique and irreplaceable mission of the Marine Corps is to provide a homogeneous, all-encompassing “force in readiness” that can go anywhere and fight anyone on any level short of nuclear war.

The corps has fought many political battles to preserve that mission but never from within—until now.

Among other decisions, "Ham" Berger’s “Force Structure 2030” plan includes these provisions:

Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.

• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.

• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.

• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”

• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.

• Elimination of three of the current 17 medium tilt-rotor squadrons, three of the eight heavy-lift helicopter squadrons, and “at least” two of the seven light attack helicopter squadrons, which were termed “unsuitable for maritime challenges.”
















https://www.wsj.com/articles/momentous-changes-in-the-marine-corps-deserve-debate-reduction-david-berger-general-11648217667
Click to expand...

ground troops are passe. huge standing armies are passe. you need to be "woke." that this is the 21st century.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
ground troops are passe. huge standing armies are passe. you need to be "woke." that this is the 21st century.
Click to expand...

I think the US military knows what they need more than a pussy like you.

Few members of Congress would have simply nodded and funded a program with almost irreversible long-term consequences, I suspect.

"Ham" Berger’s announcement came during the DEMOCRAT-dictated Congressional Covid restrictions, when much of Congress had gone remote, and serious examination and oversight was extremely difficult.
 
Jack said:
'Machines' are fighting the Wars now. There won't be any mass Landings at Iwo Jima anymore where 7,000 American kids are fed into the MeatGrinder.
Notice Russia pulverizing Ukraine from thousands of miles*away with missiles? Notice what Ukraine is demanding? Planes.
Click to expand...

We had total air superiority and an overwhelming naval advantage in Vietnam and Iraq. How did that work out? People fight like hell to protect their homeland and families. Even if you win in the beginning, they will keep fighting. Cuba is another example. The corrupt and powerful fought with insurrectionists until they lost. The Ukrainies seem to be willing to fight it out as long as it takes. When an invader tries to take you over, you have nowhere to go.
 
Nordberg said:
We had total air superiority and an overwhelming naval advantage in Vietnam and Iraq. How did that work out? People fight like hell to protect their homeland and families. Even if you win in the beginning, they will keep fighting. Cuba is another example. The corrupt and powerful fought with insurrectionists until they lost. The Ukrainies seem to be willing to fight it out as long as it takes. When an invader tries to take you over, you have nowhere to go.
Click to expand...


The 'debate' with Legion was over 'Man Power'. Do you send in 100,000 Soldiers to take Hiroshima ... or just Nuke it?
 
Predictably, some commentators have dismissed the concerns of the Marine Corps as coming from a bunch of wrong-thinkers whose minds are focused on yesterday’s wars.

Such comments do no justice to the long tradition of combat innovation that has always marked the Marine Corps, from amphibious doctrine to helicopter usage to the techniques of close-air support.

If "Ham" Berger’s new ideas were well thought out and tested, we would be seeing 90% of Marine Corps generals enthusiastically supporting them instead of expressing concern. But the realities of brutal combat and the wide array of global challenges the Marine Corps faces daily argue strongly against a doctrinal experiment that might look good in a computerized war game at Quantico.

Generals deserve to be listened to. For the good of the country, let’s hope they will be.
 
Legion said:
c2UuanBn


YOU HEARD THE MAN, GENERAL. DO AS HE COMMANDS​




Deference to senior command is a hard-wired tradition in elite military organizations, and nowhere was that tradition more honored than in the U.S. Marine Corps.

But what happens if a policy coming from the top of the chain of command is insufficiently tested or intrinsically flawed?

Where is it written that a subordinate can set aside deference and demand a second look?

For more than two years many of the Marine Corps’ finest have struggled with this dilemma as they quietly discussed a series of fundamental changes ordered, and in some cases already implemented, by Gen. David "Ham" Berger, the current commandant.

Among Marines there are serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapon systems and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios.

And it is unclear to just about everyone with experience in military planning what formal review and coordination was required before "Ham" Berger unilaterally announced a policy that would alter so many time-honored contributions of the Marine Corps.

The unique and irreplaceable mission of the Marine Corps is to provide a homogeneous, all-encompassing “force in readiness” that can go anywhere and fight anyone on any level short of nuclear war.

The corps has fought many political battles to preserve that mission but never from within—until now.

Among other decisions, "Ham" Berger’s “Force Structure 2030” plan includes these provisions:

Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.

• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.

• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.

• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”

• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.

• Elimination of three of the current 17 medium tilt-rotor squadrons, three of the eight heavy-lift helicopter squadrons, and “at least” two of the seven light attack helicopter squadrons, which were termed “unsuitable for maritime challenges.”
















https://www.wsj.com/articles/momentous-changes-in-the-marine-corps-deserve-debate-reduction-david-berger-general-11648217667
Click to expand...

WEAKENING THE MIGHTY US MILITARY IS PRES.MORON FOLLOWING CHINA'S ORDERS...AGAIN....JUST LIKE THE ECONO-SHUT DOWN....
 
Grokmaster said:
WEAKENING THE MIGHTY US MILITARY IS PRES.MORON FOLLOWING CHINA'S ORDERS...AGAIN....JUST LIKE THE ECONO-SHUT DOWN....
Click to expand...

I suspect that you're correct. Jack and his pals want to replace USMC heroes Like General "Chesty" Puller with pud-pullers.

They want to replace "Semper Fi" with Semper Lie".

:palm:
 
Jack said:
Bringing this important matter up on JPP will certainly get the attention of the President and Military Command. Good Work, Legion. (sigh) If we only had more like you!


:smh:
Click to expand...

What do you suggest, Jack?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top