{"id":57491,"date":"2022-12-07T22:11:37","date_gmt":"2022-12-07T22:11:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2022\/12\/07\/this-is-the-marine-corps-debate-we-should-be-having\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T21:12:29","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T21:12:29","slug":"this-is-the-marine-corps-debate-we-should-be-having","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/opinion\/2022\/12\/07\/this-is-the-marine-corps-debate-we-should-be-having\/","title":{"rendered":"This is the Marine Corps debate we should be having"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

When speaking at a recent Marine Corps Association event, a prominent Marine Corps officer erroneously and liberally alleged that some retired \u00adofficers are either mistakenly or intentionally misrepresenting key aspects of Force Design 2030. (See \u201cMarine 3-star \u2018myth-busts\u2019 notions about Force Design 2030<\/a>.\u201d) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The speaker\u2019s tangled web of false allegations that these officers are either ill-informed or duplicitous quickly unravel when exposed to even the most cursory analysis. Many Marines \u2014 \u00adformer, retired and active duty \u2014 have valid concerns about the current direction of the Marine Corps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One-sided theatrics focused on \u201cmyth-busting\u201d may be entertaining, but melodramatics fail to address the larger issue. What we should be \u00addebating is a vision for the Marine Corps that best meets the nation\u2019s national security interests in an increasingly dangerous world. The current approach does not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Force Design 2030 is an unproven concept that focuses on the certainty of a known threat in a specific location. The strategy is defensive, based on the unverified assumption that the proliferation of precision munitions and advanced sensors has changed the character of war, rendering the defense decisively dominant over the offense.<\/p>\n\n\n\t