Thar be Dragons!
USMC Force Design - Rationalism v Emotion
Washington DC 1 Aug 2022
USNI News has a new piece on the testing and evaluation of the recon piece of Force Design 2030. What struck me was the professional insight offered by serving Marines compared to the more emotive responses of the critics. This is part of the wider zeitgeist. There is an evaporation of open rational discourse in favor of a closed system of emotional ‘fire and forget’ declaratory statements that go nowhere. The #FD2030 (FD) debate has avoided most of these pitfalls. But it is still skirting a few on the fringe. Robert Work compared FD debate to a messy family dispute over the grand children for a reason.
The FD critics say they speak for the silent majority in the service who have contacted them in private to say they hate FD. Thats a pretty shady position. It may be true or not. There is no way to know. Assuming it is true, I think the generals deserve at least that, anecdotes are useful, but prone to all sorts of analytical minefields if mishandled, wittingly or unwittingly.
Thar be Dragons
Back of envelope math. Assumptions. Let’s say the ~6 top critics have directly spoken to, or emailed, 100 people each in sufficient detail to be able to confidentially represent their views beyond “good/bad”. Assume also that all are smart, don’t have an axe to grind, and all are as against FD as the critics. Assuming 183,000 active duty Marines with 18% in the officer corps = 32700 Officers (600/32700= 0.018%). Therefore, the critics base their arguments on the opinion of 0.018% of the officer corps. [My apologies to key senior enlisted folks who have a very important role here I just wanted to keep the back of envelope simple]. So 0.018% of the officer corps are motivated enough to reach out to former generals to complain. Maybe a similar number do not feel confident speaking to a retired general. So the critics might be double that number. Maybe a similar number totally disagree with the generals but don’t feel confident confronting them? How will we know? If this were a chart of the world of Marine Corps professional knowledge, this is the “Thar be Dragons” portion of the map.
0.018% of the USMC Officer Corps Dislikes all or part of FD
The question that inevitably follows is “so what?”
Anecdotes can tell an important story if they truly reflect the trends inside an organization. They can also be problematic because they give too much power to the anecdote holder and cannot be investigated for reliability and applicability. For example, of the 600 who hate FD2030, how many fully hate it versus those who have issues with this or that element. Might some of those 600 be placated if the concept is refined and improved? It's the old "I can read classified material you cant, trust me, I just know you are wrong" argument. It's not good enough. Sorry.
Compare to the alternative
What we do know is that the #usmc has been transparently testing and evaluating for some time now. They told us what they were going to do, how they were going to do it, and then they did it. They report out results regularly as promised. They have included evidence that does not support the FD concept. The Corps has modified concepts as results come in and reported those changes out too. This open iterative ideas architecture is what design is all about.
This strikes me as a healthy approach. I think it is a good idea to listen carefully to the observations and insights of those on active duty who are involved in the testing. Officers who put their names and careers on the line in interviews like those in the USNI article. I would dismiss this kind of evidence very cautiously. Unless there is a huge silent revolt in the Corps, maybe the USMC is in fact mostly on board with the concept. One of the most persuasive pieces I have read was from a senior enlisted leader. No sane man in his position wants to tangle with generals, part or present, but he felt the need to outline, unemotionally, his professional experience and observations. Like the generals, he has seen war. Unlike the generals, he has seen war recently.
Thats just a fact, not a slam. I have defended elements of the generals criticisms… for example, rate of fire of artillery is important in some contexts. Range and precision of HIMARs are important in others. Like anything worth knowing, this is not as easy as it looks on the surface. The important thing is to keep ones head and debate from a position of rationality and facts.
Rationalism is winning the war
As a huge bureaucracy, will the USMC have a party line? Sure. Does it engage in groupthink? Sure. Is there evidence of groupthink in FD? No.
Quite the opposite. Openness has been the name of the game. From outlining the new concept, the reasoning behind its creation, to its testing and evaluation (both table top and in the field); the entire scheme has been clearly laid out for all to see. Incredibly, it has been self funded! HQMC didn’t put its hand out. It made choices and lived by them! Love it or hate it, FD was the first high profile fiscally responsible thing the DOD has done in a very long time.
Importantly, the USMC has shown it has broad shoulders. It has faced some quite emotionally charged criticisms "what's happening to my beloved Marine Corps?" Its has not reacted emotionally. Instead it has responded with calm patience and dedication to engaging in the differences of opinion in the hope that growth and refinement will result.
There is no better indicator of a healthy institution - whether public or private, large or small.