The folks who run Compass Points have banned any voices that do not agree with them, so forgive my presumption in responding here rather than on Compass Points.
If you are just digging into the discussion on Force Design, I would offer a number of sources that counter the views of the retired Marines who run Compass Points. These sources are also from either current or retired Marines, or others who have extensive experience in national defense matters. I offer these because I became enmeshed in the debate about Force Design in my last 4 years in uniform as a Marine. It’s not a debate I particularly enjoyed, because the retired critics shifted from questioning aspects of Force Design to repeatedly making personal attack on those who disagreed with and making assertions about Force Design unmoored from the evidence. I came away disappointed and disgusted by their behavior and their repeated refusal to hold to evidentiary standards. So if you’re interested in the discussion I’m offering evidence of a competing point of view—one which, as I mentioned, is held by current and retired Marines for whom the implications of Force Design is not an academic debate, but have real impacts on current mission sets.
Part of my final years in uniform was running a webinar series for Marine Corps University in which I sought out active duty Marines who were implementing various aspects of Force Design. I talked with almost 30 separate entities, and the one thing I think this series makes clear is that Force Design extends well beyond “defense on islands in the Pacific.” It addresses everything from marksmanship to retaining talented Marines: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5srRwO9nGAFso6W7PjVtpyg_paaAKo_H&si=rCWysuOThyrMeZEi
I know this is a lot of material but I hope you’ll give it fair consideration as supporting evidence that the Force Design critics do not represent the totality of voices on the topic, and that their critiques lack an evidentiary standard one would expect from people of their former senior ranks.
Again, I would have responded to your comment on Compass Points itself, but they have banned all dissenting voices from their website. That, in itself, says something about how well they think their positions can withstand scrutiny.
I welcome opposing and new perspectives. The above articles contain a lot to unpack. You are welcome to come on my Substack podcast to expand upon those concepts.
The folks who run Compass Points have banned any voices that do not agree with them, so forgive my presumption in responding here rather than on Compass Points.
If you are just digging into the discussion on Force Design, I would offer a number of sources that counter the views of the retired Marines who run Compass Points. These sources are also from either current or retired Marines, or others who have extensive experience in national defense matters. I offer these because I became enmeshed in the debate about Force Design in my last 4 years in uniform as a Marine. It’s not a debate I particularly enjoyed, because the retired critics shifted from questioning aspects of Force Design to repeatedly making personal attack on those who disagreed with and making assertions about Force Design unmoored from the evidence. I came away disappointed and disgusted by their behavior and their repeated refusal to hold to evidentiary standards. So if you’re interested in the discussion I’m offering evidence of a competing point of view—one which, as I mentioned, is held by current and retired Marines for whom the implications of Force Design is not an academic debate, but have real impacts on current mission sets.
Former Secretary of Defense Bob Work has perhaps the most exhaustive list of points raised by the critics, and rebuttals to them: https://tnsr.org/2023/05/marine-force-design-changes-overdue-despite-critics-claims/
Several current and former Marines, myself included, authored a piece looking at current maritime trends and arguing that Force Design is properly caged to deal with 21st century naval challenges: https://warontherocks.com/2024/01/trends-in-maritime-challenges-indicate-force-design-2030-is-the-proper-path/
We also explored the issues in the article more deeply in this podcast from the Center for International Maritime Security: https://cimsec.org/sea-control-550-six-marines-talk-force-design-2030/
Myself and another group of current/retired Marines were invited to a panel discussion on why we supported Force Design: https://youtu.be/pd2iI1tiMm4?si=TWBXPLtyNoU6TdQo
Part of my final years in uniform was running a webinar series for Marine Corps University in which I sought out active duty Marines who were implementing various aspects of Force Design. I talked with almost 30 separate entities, and the one thing I think this series makes clear is that Force Design extends well beyond “defense on islands in the Pacific.” It addresses everything from marksmanship to retaining talented Marines: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5srRwO9nGAFso6W7PjVtpyg_paaAKo_H&si=rCWysuOThyrMeZEi
I know this is a lot of material but I hope you’ll give it fair consideration as supporting evidence that the Force Design critics do not represent the totality of voices on the topic, and that their critiques lack an evidentiary standard one would expect from people of their former senior ranks.
Again, I would have responded to your comment on Compass Points itself, but they have banned all dissenting voices from their website. That, in itself, says something about how well they think their positions can withstand scrutiny.
I welcome opposing and new perspectives. The above articles contain a lot to unpack. You are welcome to come on my Substack podcast to expand upon those concepts.
Thank you. I won’t deluge you with more at this point but am happy to point you to additional source material as desired.
This was most illuminating. Thanks.