MILLIONS MUST DIE. I'm only being slightly sarcastic. If we've been able to be relatively "fat, drunk, and stupid" for four (arguably eight) decades, the ignorant who believe that's normal will do everything they can to stay on the same path.
Sals point about Bryan setting an example is spot on. I’ve watched a number of Bryan’s talk to civic clubs and they are impressive. I think to my time in Rotary and how educational and influential similar talks by military types would have been. Those clubs have business and community leaders in the membership. It would be a force multiplier for the military and very much in Americas best interest to mandate military talks to civic clubs and other groups of community leaders. We have the people, but not the will.
CDR Salamander, without a doubt, the best of many of “the best” posts that you have written. (And you write a lot of them!) As a Marine Infantry Officer decades ago, it has been a horror show to watch everyone miss the plot for the last 40 years. Okay we were distracted, a little war for 100 hours here, two 20 years wars there, and pretty soon you don’t have a clue. Your military becomes a melted ice cream cone on concrete. Force Design 2030 was the dumbest waste of time and energy any think tank and two careerist Marine Corps Commandants could think of, and then they brow beat anyone who disagreed with them out of the service or into silence to retirement. Not that we don’t need everything that you have outlined here, but which is easier to do in the long run, a land bridge to the tip of Argentina embracing our southern hemisphere neighbors and making them true trading partners, ( talk about a Belts and Roads initiative) or more billions defending SLOCs and wide expanses of ocean? We will need a new and robust navy, able to project power IF needed, but ALWAYS ready, and a Marine Corps that projects expeditionary power backed by the full weight of the logistics arm you so aptly described. (3 MEU’S at sea all the time, heel, toe, heel toe, each of the 3 Divisions/Wings meeting Title X mandates)
We need all 730 flags and senior enlisted who were at Quantico yesterday, to ask themselves, when is the last time you looked at yourselves in the mirror and did an OODA Loop, a personal assessment. Maybe do it naked, just to remind yourselves that fat is uncool for a senior leader as an example. While you’re at it Admiral/General Beknots, a fat head is the same as a fat ass. Then all of Washington’s “leadership” might do the same. It won’t be pretty. But as one Admiral put it in a graduation speech, now famous, perhaps start with a basic. Make your bed. Sprinkle some water on your garden, maybe something will grow. Again, great post!
You realize his entire argument heree is naval and air power? Force Design strives to integrate the Marines back into naval power. Is it in final form? Of course not.
Force Design is a static one trick pony, it strands Marines with limited logistics, aging missiles, no current littoral resupply or redeployment amphibious vessels that can do the job envisioned, on island chains that may or may not be part of the strategic picture. The whole point of a Naval force is its maneuver and mobility, to project power, and protect SLOC’s, etc., look at the maps CDR Salamander posted. There is yawning gap between the US and China called the Pacific Ocean. FD2030 or just Force Design, as the genius’ behind it, slow walk away from it, is not even close to a final form, because it is a bad idea that has been still born for 6 years. What was worse was the divestment of assets to “invest” in Force Design. What it did was diminish the Corps ability to fully meet Title X mandates. It could be argued that the Secretary of War says, the Hell with the Corps and integrates it variously across the other service branches. Want Marines back in naval power? Then support the MEU, MEB, MEF concept, try placing a rifle company reinforced with some special operations capabilities on the CVN Battle Groups. Stranding Marines, as the Japanese’s did to their army on island chains in WWII, is doing two things. Projecting a fight with China in a way that likely won’t happen, ergo it is a waste of time and resources and two, will lead to defeat in detail if it does come to pass. There is a reason that multi highly qualified abet retired Marine Corps general officers have called BS on FD, and done so loudly.
Marines in the Batanes or Ryukus with only NSM would still threaten any Chinese attempt to invade or blockade Taiwan and that concept can be applied to denying any choke point.. They will be deploying an extended range NSM shortly along with Blk II Rogue Fires which appear to complete the software integration for networked fires that can directly take data from the Navy for a firing solution. Meanwhile you now have AH-1s functioning as an airborne PT Boat also with cruise missiles. Its FD2030 and we are in 2025. All of the littoral regiment's gear can hitch a ride between islands via helo or C-130. Yes, the LSM plan is weak.
Andy just won’t let go. No sense trying to convince him. So let’s just send him out to a first chain island with a months supply of chow and water. He can report back when he is out of both. Then we will get back to him when we can….maybe send a AH-1 out for him…great reply Sid!
I'm not saying Force Design as it sits is good to go, but if people spent half as much time trying to evolve it than dismiss it we might have something that works.
Didn't say they won't be detected. Please try to burn resources trying to find these small units. Even better once they realize they need to be on boats.
The FD Acolytes will not let got of the failed plan. How many Admirals and USMC Generals and their senior enlisted representatives sitting at Quantico KNOW that FD2030/Force Design is flawed? All of them. Yet, they sat silently for 6 years..and people wonder there is low confidence in the senior military leadership. Peole may not like the messenger or his delivery style, so what? It was the message and that had to wake a few of those sleep walkers with stars up a bit.
"We need all 730 flags and senior enlisted who were at Quantico yesterday, to ask themselves, when is the last time you looked at yourselves in the mirror and did an OODA Loop, a personal assessment."
Bet the atmospheric pressure was bursting in that auditorium with all those deficienctly self reflective egos packed in there...
CDR Sal, nicely done. Very nicely done! If you know what you want to be, you've got a chance at formulating a plan that if executed will get you there. Apologies to Stephen Covey, begin with end in mind? Regarding the execution of that plan, the incentive structure for the people in the DoD, Congress, and Military Industrial Complex (MIC, TM) must reward the behavior / activity you want and punish that which you don't. Otherwise, human behavior 101 kicks in, and you will get the opposite...more of what you don't want and less of what you want. Creating that incentive structure will be resisted at every turn, as the gravy train of flag officers to major defense company board rooms in return for favorable contract awards (LCS anyone?), and donations to political candidates for election campaigns has been viewed as a perverse federal entitlement program for decades. Might be our last chance, better take it.
We may retain the format of a republic by holding elections but if by a republic you mean a citizen soldier who has a stake in the nation then I must demur.
Comparisons between America and the Roman Republic are ubiquitous. There are however too many similarities. Endless wars. Declining middle class. Massive debt. Unchecked immigration resulting in cheap labor. Debased currency. Bread and Circuses - I mean NFL games and Taylor Swift, etc.
We really need to get our own house in order before political assassination become commonplace. Oh wait….
Seward did not agree with that, stating, succinctly, to the British Ambassador, that the US was an empire. The way DC rules, they think it's an empire.
I was thinking that as I read the essay. The geopolitical and military stuff nailed it but not the republican assertion. Does it even matter, if we get the other stuff right? There are many possible dates as to when we became an Empire. 1848, 1861, 1901, 1919, 1947 for sure. Certainly, the Roman Empire had staying power after the Republic expired. About 1500 years. I would rather live in a republic but empires can be robust and prosperous. So if we get the other stuff right in terms of being maritime and aerospace and pivoting to the East can we also be robust and prosperous. This requires cutting Europe loose to marinate in their own craziness but there are all sorts of reasons why that is a good idea. In Roman terms, we are late Republic with violence and civil war looming but that wasn't the end of Rome. Rome was inherently a land power and that doomed them in a world filled with Germans, Huns and Persians but we don't have to be.
And how many farmers do we have? It is a sacrifice to serve your country. Part of the good is the edge that draftees bring. It is only for a few years, not a lifetime.
Not every enlistment/commission turns it into a full career; I think there are still many "citizen soldiers" in our society, albeit far fewer by percentage than in 1945.
I see the benefits of compulsory service for citizenship, and perhaps even for local service and border defense. As I've gotten older I just can't bring myself to support compulsory service on adventures overseas anymore.
I think that less than 20% of those who volunteer end up making it a career. Completely agree that the military ought not be the only choice. FDR's CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) is an excellent example of an alternative.
My impression from living in the late 1960s and early 1970s (when I enlisted) was that having draftees made the civilian world much more aware of what was going on in the military- a positive. The disconnect between the civilian and military worlds is more pronounced than I have seen in my lifetime.
Agree except for Force Design 2030 being "Good Friction." It's been a disaster for the Marine Corps. Absolute disaster. We could probably do a week on why, but honestly, getting Lt Gen Paul van Ripper to guest post on your blog would be enough. He could give you a very concise treatment.
We don't need more retired generals telling us about problems in a force design they play no part. We need someone active to speak to it either way. Someone active needs to actively debate the design with someone retired rather than sitting around being a respectful punching bag.
When was the last time an article questioning the strategic status quo (or questioning anything without permission from higher authority) was published in Proceedings by someone on active duty.
You're on active duty, so you must surely know that doing so is a fast track to career oblivion.
No one like W.S. Sims is allowed in your Navy today Andy.
For this 80th anniversary of the World War I armistice, Bernard Gribble’s “Return of the Mayflower” pays tribute to the integration of U.S. Navy destroyers into the Royal Navy’s command structure. The man behind this strategy was Admiral William S. Sims, who consistently thought “out of the box.”
ok, Andy. Allow me. Force Design 2030 was conceived by a BOGSAT featuring a few of the former CMC's friends and CNA, not staffed through the MROC. Half of the MAGTF was mortgaged to pay for it, and the net result has been the decom of 2 Marine Infantry Regiments, commissioning of new MLRs that lack their cornerstone weapons systems (even 10 years later from inception), and largely beaten to the punch by the US Army Multi Domain Task Force despite close to a decade of doctrinal advance (LOCE, EABO, SIF, etc). The tanks are gone, half of tubed artillery were gone, then some bought back. Logistics still isn't figured out. The Amphibious Fleet was de-prioritized, allowed to rust in place with an operational availability below 40% according to some GAO estimates. The Marine General Officers haven't figured out what they want to be when they grow up, and whatever the answer is, it likely won't be ready for the next war. How's that?
Your list if national understanding is a bit simplistic. The implications of those things are also part of the problem the "leadership" has. Those are things they do not understand. The leadership has ossified and the numbers of GOFOs is a good indication of the problem.
This is a discrete assumption when a continuous (i.e., non-polar) assumption better reflects what our nation/government has become (regardless of what the Constitution mandates).
Perform a Google search of the extent of the Roman Republic at the time of its fall and, although its government was of a Republican form, its physical and geopolitical boundaries approximated those that would exist during its time as an empire.
The Roman Republic and Empire required a garrison state to support its far flung commitments—and the attendant military-industrial complex fueled by ever-increasing amounts of national blood and treasure. The US is failing to learn this lesson (just as the British and Soviets did) and the consequences will be just as severe.
The second Punic War showed the strength of a Republic. 80,000 men ground up in one battle and the next year an army entirely reconstituted. An ability we possessed through WWII, best example being the Civil War.
I stand with you as your “Executive Officer” of that different flavor!
I have the Cultural Education and DIA Training to work peacefully with the Russian Federation in the Eurasian and Middle Eastern areas.
CDR Salamander, sir, we are of that “Older, Savvy, Sensible cohort” who have real-time on land and sea knowledge of the Naval Reserves!
I agree 100% with your assessment to rapidly deploy our Reserves into Active Force maritime areas of concern.
Strategic Air Power, I rely on my precious son, Sky Pilot, to fly the missions he’s assigned.
CDR Salamander, I’ve got that “knack” of assimilating “Current Global Events” to dial down to where, what and how the “Action” will be directed. I share that information with you in your Chart Room.
CDR Salamander, I agree with you concerning Land Movements. Better equipped “Land Armies” can produce machinery to “Ride the Rails”, or maintain the Trucks!
CDR Salamander, I applaud your understanding of separating our “Fighting Maritime Force” from worthy civil aid relief organizations.
I’m a “Female Biological Woman” who can stand with you on your Command & Control Ship’s Bridge, to carry out your Plan of The Day! God love us all! Nurse Jane
I’m a lifelong civilian. I came of age with the GWOT, admonished by the moral failures of the Vietnam anti-war movement. “Support our troops,” read the yellow ribbon on the back of our car. “By bringing them home,” I would explain to any incredulous, raised eyebrows. I have no comfortable home in partisan debates about our armed forces—too much a booster for the left, too much a dove for the right.
Each side’s threat assessment is cartoonish. One rejects the possibility of peer conflicts in the nuclear era, while the other longs for the sport of it. Preparation suffers the mutual absurdity while the theatrical fops feast. Peace through strength is no hollow slogan. But resources are finite and strength needs peaceful purpose.
Logistics support lethality. Our forces’ ability to appear overnight, establish supply lines and overwhelming infrastructure, and pack out just as quickly is dual-use. The capability to clean up a disaster is the capability to create a disaster. Our world has no shortage of disasters.
US defense contractors, especially those that sell land-based and land-focused hardware, go where the money is, and that's Europe and the Middle East. To build up maritime and aerospace capabilities in the Pacific, the US Government will need to incentivize defense contractors with lots of dedicated funding, guaranteed over many years, regardless of who occupies the White House and runs Congress.
Exactly. The Navy just contracted 2800 small boats over 10 years for 3.5 billion, where the biggest chunk are target boats. What isn't in this budget are USVs, but its still small change. Original JLTV contract is about double this amount for one vehicle type and that number has grown since the initial reward (minus present Army ending purchases). We have no boat builder who can mass produce boats like we do land vehicles. GARC in replicator is the first thing to come close and its a jet ski.
Andy: Thanks for my continuing naval education. I just read-up on GARCs (Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft). "The 16-foot (488 centimeters) GARCs, built by Maritime Applied Physics Corp, were first delivered to the US Navy’s Unmanned Surface Vessel Squadron 3 (USVRON 3) in February last year." Production rate is 32 GARCs per month. (From the Eurasion Times, 1/22/25)
You cannot entrust the defense of a nation to corporations loyal to shareholders. The nation must provide for its own defense. We need to return to a system where the Army made munitions and the Navy ships.
WW2 and the Cold War were won using equipment produced by corporations loyal to shareholders. Making our equipment in some equivalent to state-run Soviet design bureaus is not going to solve our problems.
John A. Dahlgren would beg to differ. A nation has to be able to defend itself. Six inch naval guns are not something anyone other than a nation should own.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
You are quoting the Ike speech from 1961. Yay, go you. But that speech is now obsolete. The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is no longer new. It has been around for the last 85 years out of the nation's 240+ years. The influence of the MIC, in terms of money spent, is now FAR below pharma, health care, insurance, real estate, oil & gas, agriculture, internet/tech, and many others.
And also I ask you - what do you expect to achieve? Lockheed, for example, gets over 90% of its revenue from government contracts. What would truly be different if we made Lockheed a government entity, its employees government employees, and its chief executives government appointees? Would that somehow result in better products being produced more quickly and cheaply? Why do you think that would occur? What in our experience would lead us to think that would happen?
There's a lot more money in aircraft, ships, and submarines. The biggest primes have huge contracts with the Air Force and Navy. Out of the total number of contractor employees, 11% are working on Army contracts, 59% on Navy contracts, and 26% on Air Force contracts. In other words, the money already is going to maritime and aerospace capabilities in principle usable in the Pacific.
Can't build a Navy (or any Service) without a coherent vision of future war and a strategic vision. Army went through a process post-VN. I believe I have this story right. I may have the names wrong. Chief of Staff (Abrams) convened a small think group of mostly Colonels (Harry Summer, Raoul Alcala, etc.) and produced the "Asteride" report. The report didn't talk about divisions, tanks, etc. It instead said, "Here's the critical national interest, here's the threat, here's the most likely place to meet the threat in a fight over that interest, here's what war will look like (in capabilities terms)." That report was briefed around DC to Executive and Legislative branch something like 100 times in a year. Got the head nods -- made sense. Then when the Army said, "Here's what we think we need to be successful in that war setting that we briefed you about earlier" it was hard for those who bought into the first brief to decline the needs presented in the following briefs and requests. That process was part of the answer that brought the Army FM 100-5, AirLand Battle with the USAF, the Big Five (Abrams, Bradley, Apache, Blackhawk, MLRS/Patriot), the Combat Training Centers, REFORGER, etc.
Today, all the Services are chasing bright, shiny objects, without the coherent forethought.
There has been a good deal of thought since 2017 about the "Return to Great Power Competition" but these thoughts have not produced a great deal of hardware at the sharp end.
Excellent brother.
MILLIONS MUST DIE. I'm only being slightly sarcastic. If we've been able to be relatively "fat, drunk, and stupid" for four (arguably eight) decades, the ignorant who believe that's normal will do everything they can to stay on the same path.
CDR Sal, in addition to your two excellent questions, I propose two additional questions to guide those who guide us:
Why can't we do what we say we will do?
Why can't we do what we used to do routinely and with excellence?
We can but we don't.
The reason: voters aren't interested in this, and that's the fault of USN & USAF leaders for not evangelizing the voters.
Too busy thinking about that Board of Directors seat when they retire.
Sals point about Bryan setting an example is spot on. I’ve watched a number of Bryan’s talk to civic clubs and they are impressive. I think to my time in Rotary and how educational and influential similar talks by military types would have been. Those clubs have business and community leaders in the membership. It would be a force multiplier for the military and very much in Americas best interest to mandate military talks to civic clubs and other groups of community leaders. We have the people, but not the will.
CDR Salamander, without a doubt, the best of many of “the best” posts that you have written. (And you write a lot of them!) As a Marine Infantry Officer decades ago, it has been a horror show to watch everyone miss the plot for the last 40 years. Okay we were distracted, a little war for 100 hours here, two 20 years wars there, and pretty soon you don’t have a clue. Your military becomes a melted ice cream cone on concrete. Force Design 2030 was the dumbest waste of time and energy any think tank and two careerist Marine Corps Commandants could think of, and then they brow beat anyone who disagreed with them out of the service or into silence to retirement. Not that we don’t need everything that you have outlined here, but which is easier to do in the long run, a land bridge to the tip of Argentina embracing our southern hemisphere neighbors and making them true trading partners, ( talk about a Belts and Roads initiative) or more billions defending SLOCs and wide expanses of ocean? We will need a new and robust navy, able to project power IF needed, but ALWAYS ready, and a Marine Corps that projects expeditionary power backed by the full weight of the logistics arm you so aptly described. (3 MEU’S at sea all the time, heel, toe, heel toe, each of the 3 Divisions/Wings meeting Title X mandates)
We need all 730 flags and senior enlisted who were at Quantico yesterday, to ask themselves, when is the last time you looked at yourselves in the mirror and did an OODA Loop, a personal assessment. Maybe do it naked, just to remind yourselves that fat is uncool for a senior leader as an example. While you’re at it Admiral/General Beknots, a fat head is the same as a fat ass. Then all of Washington’s “leadership” might do the same. It won’t be pretty. But as one Admiral put it in a graduation speech, now famous, perhaps start with a basic. Make your bed. Sprinkle some water on your garden, maybe something will grow. Again, great post!
You realize his entire argument heree is naval and air power? Force Design strives to integrate the Marines back into naval power. Is it in final form? Of course not.
Force Design is a static one trick pony, it strands Marines with limited logistics, aging missiles, no current littoral resupply or redeployment amphibious vessels that can do the job envisioned, on island chains that may or may not be part of the strategic picture. The whole point of a Naval force is its maneuver and mobility, to project power, and protect SLOC’s, etc., look at the maps CDR Salamander posted. There is yawning gap between the US and China called the Pacific Ocean. FD2030 or just Force Design, as the genius’ behind it, slow walk away from it, is not even close to a final form, because it is a bad idea that has been still born for 6 years. What was worse was the divestment of assets to “invest” in Force Design. What it did was diminish the Corps ability to fully meet Title X mandates. It could be argued that the Secretary of War says, the Hell with the Corps and integrates it variously across the other service branches. Want Marines back in naval power? Then support the MEU, MEB, MEF concept, try placing a rifle company reinforced with some special operations capabilities on the CVN Battle Groups. Stranding Marines, as the Japanese’s did to their army on island chains in WWII, is doing two things. Projecting a fight with China in a way that likely won’t happen, ergo it is a waste of time and resources and two, will lead to defeat in detail if it does come to pass. There is a reason that multi highly qualified abet retired Marine Corps general officers have called BS on FD, and done so loudly.
Amen
Marines in the Batanes or Ryukus with only NSM would still threaten any Chinese attempt to invade or blockade Taiwan and that concept can be applied to denying any choke point.. They will be deploying an extended range NSM shortly along with Blk II Rogue Fires which appear to complete the software integration for networked fires that can directly take data from the Navy for a firing solution. Meanwhile you now have AH-1s functioning as an airborne PT Boat also with cruise missiles. Its FD2030 and we are in 2025. All of the littoral regiment's gear can hitch a ride between islands via helo or C-130. Yes, the LSM plan is weak.
All the electronic emissions involved here...
You don't think the Chinese will hear the cacophony and see the threat?
Seems you still believe the Marines can deploy undetected. Yeah. Good luck with that.
All that fuel those AH-1's will be sucking up. How secure will that supply and resupply be?
Seems I see less and less "Force Design" mentioned with 2030 at the end.
2045 may still be too soon.
Andy just won’t let go. No sense trying to convince him. So let’s just send him out to a first chain island with a months supply of chow and water. He can report back when he is out of both. Then we will get back to him when we can….maybe send a AH-1 out for him…great reply Sid!
I'm not saying Force Design as it sits is good to go, but if people spent half as much time trying to evolve it than dismiss it we might have something that works.
Didn't say they won't be detected. Please try to burn resources trying to find these small units. Even better once they realize they need to be on boats.
Sure appears their CONOPS is predicated on a surfeit of resources...
https://x.com/TrentTelenko/status/1973133156816691389
Real World...not fancy (flawed)'Rigorously War Gamed'...result of an LSM "hiding in plain sight."
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/64e6/live/a027c0d0-1361-11ef-bd52-df3708e525b5.jpg.webp
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80z0d152wzo
The FD Acolytes will not let got of the failed plan. How many Admirals and USMC Generals and their senior enlisted representatives sitting at Quantico KNOW that FD2030/Force Design is flawed? All of them. Yet, they sat silently for 6 years..and people wonder there is low confidence in the senior military leadership. Peole may not like the messenger or his delivery style, so what? It was the message and that had to wake a few of those sleep walkers with stars up a bit.
"We need all 730 flags and senior enlisted who were at Quantico yesterday, to ask themselves, when is the last time you looked at yourselves in the mirror and did an OODA Loop, a personal assessment."
Bet the atmospheric pressure was bursting in that auditorium with all those deficienctly self reflective egos packed in there...
o7
recommend prisoners of geography by tim marshall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d7XeeC6nrs
How Geography Explains Our World, with Tim Marshall (Part 1)
CDR Sal, nicely done. Very nicely done! If you know what you want to be, you've got a chance at formulating a plan that if executed will get you there. Apologies to Stephen Covey, begin with end in mind? Regarding the execution of that plan, the incentive structure for the people in the DoD, Congress, and Military Industrial Complex (MIC, TM) must reward the behavior / activity you want and punish that which you don't. Otherwise, human behavior 101 kicks in, and you will get the opposite...more of what you don't want and less of what you want. Creating that incentive structure will be resisted at every turn, as the gravy train of flag officers to major defense company board rooms in return for favorable contract awards (LCS anyone?), and donations to political candidates for election campaigns has been viewed as a perverse federal entitlement program for decades. Might be our last chance, better take it.
“We are a republic, not an empire.”
I am not so sure if that is true anymore.
We may retain the format of a republic by holding elections but if by a republic you mean a citizen soldier who has a stake in the nation then I must demur.
Comparisons between America and the Roman Republic are ubiquitous. There are however too many similarities. Endless wars. Declining middle class. Massive debt. Unchecked immigration resulting in cheap labor. Debased currency. Bread and Circuses - I mean NFL games and Taylor Swift, etc.
We really need to get our own house in order before political assassination become commonplace. Oh wait….
💯
Seward did not agree with that, stating, succinctly, to the British Ambassador, that the US was an empire. The way DC rules, they think it's an empire.
With all of the perquisites of Roman senators, to include the Potomac Flotilla.
I was thinking that as I read the essay. The geopolitical and military stuff nailed it but not the republican assertion. Does it even matter, if we get the other stuff right? There are many possible dates as to when we became an Empire. 1848, 1861, 1901, 1919, 1947 for sure. Certainly, the Roman Empire had staying power after the Republic expired. About 1500 years. I would rather live in a republic but empires can be robust and prosperous. So if we get the other stuff right in terms of being maritime and aerospace and pivoting to the East can we also be robust and prosperous. This requires cutting Europe loose to marinate in their own craziness but there are all sorts of reasons why that is a good idea. In Roman terms, we are late Republic with violence and civil war looming but that wasn't the end of Rome. Rome was inherently a land power and that doomed them in a world filled with Germans, Huns and Persians but we don't have to be.
The draft gave us citizen soldiers. I do not think the volunteer force does.
Same problem confronted the Roman Republic when they created a professional permanent army. Hard to run your farm when you have to go off and fight.
And how many farmers do we have? It is a sacrifice to serve your country. Part of the good is the edge that draftees bring. It is only for a few years, not a lifetime.
Not every enlistment/commission turns it into a full career; I think there are still many "citizen soldiers" in our society, albeit far fewer by percentage than in 1945.
I see the benefits of compulsory service for citizenship, and perhaps even for local service and border defense. As I've gotten older I just can't bring myself to support compulsory service on adventures overseas anymore.
I think that less than 20% of those who volunteer end up making it a career. Completely agree that the military ought not be the only choice. FDR's CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) is an excellent example of an alternative.
My impression from living in the late 1960s and early 1970s (when I enlisted) was that having draftees made the civilian world much more aware of what was going on in the military- a positive. The disconnect between the civilian and military worlds is more pronounced than I have seen in my lifetime.
Agree except for Force Design 2030 being "Good Friction." It's been a disaster for the Marine Corps. Absolute disaster. We could probably do a week on why, but honestly, getting Lt Gen Paul van Ripper to guest post on your blog would be enough. He could give you a very concise treatment.
We don't need more retired generals telling us about problems in a force design they play no part. We need someone active to speak to it either way. Someone active needs to actively debate the design with someone retired rather than sitting around being a respectful punching bag.
When was the last time an article questioning the strategic status quo (or questioning anything without permission from higher authority) was published in Proceedings by someone on active duty.
You're on active duty, so you must surely know that doing so is a fast track to career oblivion.
No one like W.S. Sims is allowed in your Navy today Andy.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1998/december/critic-within
The Critic Within
For this 80th anniversary of the World War I armistice, Bernard Gribble’s “Return of the Mayflower” pays tribute to the integration of U.S. Navy destroyers into the Royal Navy’s command structure. The man behind this strategy was Admiral William S. Sims, who consistently thought “out of the box.”
ok, Andy. Allow me. Force Design 2030 was conceived by a BOGSAT featuring a few of the former CMC's friends and CNA, not staffed through the MROC. Half of the MAGTF was mortgaged to pay for it, and the net result has been the decom of 2 Marine Infantry Regiments, commissioning of new MLRs that lack their cornerstone weapons systems (even 10 years later from inception), and largely beaten to the punch by the US Army Multi Domain Task Force despite close to a decade of doctrinal advance (LOCE, EABO, SIF, etc). The tanks are gone, half of tubed artillery were gone, then some bought back. Logistics still isn't figured out. The Amphibious Fleet was de-prioritized, allowed to rust in place with an operational availability below 40% according to some GAO estimates. The Marine General Officers haven't figured out what they want to be when they grow up, and whatever the answer is, it likely won't be ready for the next war. How's that?
Excellent idea about Ripper.
Your list if national understanding is a bit simplistic. The implications of those things are also part of the problem the "leadership" has. Those are things they do not understand. The leadership has ossified and the numbers of GOFOs is a good indication of the problem.
“We are a Republic, not an empire.”
Huh?
This is a discrete assumption when a continuous (i.e., non-polar) assumption better reflects what our nation/government has become (regardless of what the Constitution mandates).
Perform a Google search of the extent of the Roman Republic at the time of its fall and, although its government was of a Republican form, its physical and geopolitical boundaries approximated those that would exist during its time as an empire.
The Roman Republic and Empire required a garrison state to support its far flung commitments—and the attendant military-industrial complex fueled by ever-increasing amounts of national blood and treasure. The US is failing to learn this lesson (just as the British and Soviets did) and the consequences will be just as severe.
The second Punic War showed the strength of a Republic. 80,000 men ground up in one battle and the next year an army entirely reconstituted. An ability we possessed through WWII, best example being the Civil War.
The British Empire exhibited that same “strength” in the trenches during WWI.
Not saying its a desired outcome, but resiliency based on your citizen’s support is a massive strength.
CDR Salamander, I salute you!
I stand with you as your “Executive Officer” of that different flavor!
I have the Cultural Education and DIA Training to work peacefully with the Russian Federation in the Eurasian and Middle Eastern areas.
CDR Salamander, sir, we are of that “Older, Savvy, Sensible cohort” who have real-time on land and sea knowledge of the Naval Reserves!
I agree 100% with your assessment to rapidly deploy our Reserves into Active Force maritime areas of concern.
Strategic Air Power, I rely on my precious son, Sky Pilot, to fly the missions he’s assigned.
CDR Salamander, I’ve got that “knack” of assimilating “Current Global Events” to dial down to where, what and how the “Action” will be directed. I share that information with you in your Chart Room.
CDR Salamander, I agree with you concerning Land Movements. Better equipped “Land Armies” can produce machinery to “Ride the Rails”, or maintain the Trucks!
CDR Salamander, I applaud your understanding of separating our “Fighting Maritime Force” from worthy civil aid relief organizations.
I’m a “Female Biological Woman” who can stand with you on your Command & Control Ship’s Bridge, to carry out your Plan of The Day! God love us all! Nurse Jane
This is a pretty solid start of an argument for force design. What they are missing are boats.
I’m a lifelong civilian. I came of age with the GWOT, admonished by the moral failures of the Vietnam anti-war movement. “Support our troops,” read the yellow ribbon on the back of our car. “By bringing them home,” I would explain to any incredulous, raised eyebrows. I have no comfortable home in partisan debates about our armed forces—too much a booster for the left, too much a dove for the right.
Each side’s threat assessment is cartoonish. One rejects the possibility of peer conflicts in the nuclear era, while the other longs for the sport of it. Preparation suffers the mutual absurdity while the theatrical fops feast. Peace through strength is no hollow slogan. But resources are finite and strength needs peaceful purpose.
Logistics support lethality. Our forces’ ability to appear overnight, establish supply lines and overwhelming infrastructure, and pack out just as quickly is dual-use. The capability to clean up a disaster is the capability to create a disaster. Our world has no shortage of disasters.
US defense contractors, especially those that sell land-based and land-focused hardware, go where the money is, and that's Europe and the Middle East. To build up maritime and aerospace capabilities in the Pacific, the US Government will need to incentivize defense contractors with lots of dedicated funding, guaranteed over many years, regardless of who occupies the White House and runs Congress.
Exactly. The Navy just contracted 2800 small boats over 10 years for 3.5 billion, where the biggest chunk are target boats. What isn't in this budget are USVs, but its still small change. Original JLTV contract is about double this amount for one vehicle type and that number has grown since the initial reward (minus present Army ending purchases). We have no boat builder who can mass produce boats like we do land vehicles. GARC in replicator is the first thing to come close and its a jet ski.
Andy: Thanks for my continuing naval education. I just read-up on GARCs (Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft). "The 16-foot (488 centimeters) GARCs, built by Maritime Applied Physics Corp, were first delivered to the US Navy’s Unmanned Surface Vessel Squadron 3 (USVRON 3) in February last year." Production rate is 32 GARCs per month. (From the Eurasion Times, 1/22/25)
You cannot entrust the defense of a nation to corporations loyal to shareholders. The nation must provide for its own defense. We need to return to a system where the Army made munitions and the Navy ships.
WW2 and the Cold War were won using equipment produced by corporations loyal to shareholders. Making our equipment in some equivalent to state-run Soviet design bureaus is not going to solve our problems.
John A. Dahlgren would beg to differ. A nation has to be able to defend itself. Six inch naval guns are not something anyone other than a nation should own.
John Ericsson and James Eads would respond that a nation can defend itself using contractors, and that this nation always has.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp
You are quoting the Ike speech from 1961. Yay, go you. But that speech is now obsolete. The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is no longer new. It has been around for the last 85 years out of the nation's 240+ years. The influence of the MIC, in terms of money spent, is now FAR below pharma, health care, insurance, real estate, oil & gas, agriculture, internet/tech, and many others.
And also I ask you - what do you expect to achieve? Lockheed, for example, gets over 90% of its revenue from government contracts. What would truly be different if we made Lockheed a government entity, its employees government employees, and its chief executives government appointees? Would that somehow result in better products being produced more quickly and cheaply? Why do you think that would occur? What in our experience would lead us to think that would happen?
There's a lot more money in aircraft, ships, and submarines. The biggest primes have huge contracts with the Air Force and Navy. Out of the total number of contractor employees, 11% are working on Army contracts, 59% on Navy contracts, and 26% on Air Force contracts. In other words, the money already is going to maritime and aerospace capabilities in principle usable in the Pacific.
What one Congress does, the next one can undo. Mostly the same for Presidents.
"You have an Executive Branch already on the record wanting a stronger Navy."
Okay. Has that Executive Branch bothered to enforce Executive Order 14269, "Restoring America's Maritime Dominance," signed on April 9th of this year?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-americas-maritime-dominance/
That EO required a Maritime Action Plan from cabinet secretaries. What has been done since? Orders that go unenforced are empty words.
Can't build a Navy (or any Service) without a coherent vision of future war and a strategic vision. Army went through a process post-VN. I believe I have this story right. I may have the names wrong. Chief of Staff (Abrams) convened a small think group of mostly Colonels (Harry Summer, Raoul Alcala, etc.) and produced the "Asteride" report. The report didn't talk about divisions, tanks, etc. It instead said, "Here's the critical national interest, here's the threat, here's the most likely place to meet the threat in a fight over that interest, here's what war will look like (in capabilities terms)." That report was briefed around DC to Executive and Legislative branch something like 100 times in a year. Got the head nods -- made sense. Then when the Army said, "Here's what we think we need to be successful in that war setting that we briefed you about earlier" it was hard for those who bought into the first brief to decline the needs presented in the following briefs and requests. That process was part of the answer that brought the Army FM 100-5, AirLand Battle with the USAF, the Big Five (Abrams, Bradley, Apache, Blackhawk, MLRS/Patriot), the Combat Training Centers, REFORGER, etc.
Today, all the Services are chasing bright, shiny objects, without the coherent forethought.
There has been a good deal of thought since 2017 about the "Return to Great Power Competition" but these thoughts have not produced a great deal of hardware at the sharp end.