and allied vessels.īut the land war against Russia has shifted Washington’s strategic calculations, and given new impetus to the retired generals’ mission. to have long-range precision rockets, small loitering armed drones, and mobile ship-killing missiles that Marines can use to protect U.S. Getting rid of hundreds of tanks and amphibious vehicles saved about $3 billion, all of which was pumped back into new precision missiles and upgrades for infantry units.īerger and his supporters have said equipment such as tanks and artillery tubes aren’t suited to that Pacific fight. The argument in Berger’s new strategy is that in order for the Corps to shift its mission, and absent a massive infusion of new funding, tough decisions had to be made. It takes to heart the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which said the armed forces need to train and equip to meet the China challenge. Members meet virtually or in-person on a daily basis to plan their way forward and are stepping up their outreach to members of Congress.Īt stake is arguably the most ambitious modernization effort of any of the armed services. Webb, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, first disclosed the existence of the group. “We think the cuts are far too drastic and really, greatly diminish the capability of the Marine Corps as a combined arms team and move it away from its traditional role.” The changes Berger is putting forward “do not meet … requirements and do not meet the needs of the combatant commander,” Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of U.S. ![]() That frustration led to a March 26 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary and a Marine Vietnam veteran, who said the talks with Berger were “unsuccessful,” and declared “the gloves have now come off.” Similar pieces by retired Marine officers and other backers have appeared in other news outlets, hoping to stir up both the military audience and members of Congress. ![]() Several of the generals met with Berger on March 3 to voice their concerns, but walked away dissatisfied that they had been heard, Paul Van Riper, a retired lieutenant general who served as head of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told POLITICO. It’s no surprise that the Corps in particular, with its mystique of grit and self-reliance, would struggle with such rapid, deep-rooted changes.Ī spokesperson for Berger declined to comment on the specifics of the retired general’s criticisms, and instead pointed to statements Berger has made to Congress and in public as to why the modernization push is necessary. The changes are part of a wider rethinking of how the military is funded and structured to meet China and Russia, which are challenging post-Cold War U.S. The Corps’ 400-odd tanks have already been shifted to the Army, helicopter wings put in storage, and infantry units are being reconfigured to become smaller and more nimble. The Marine Corps’ two-year-old plan represents a fundamental shift in how the Corps equips its troops and goes to war. Yet he also noted that Berger’s efforts have already been blessed by Congress and the Pentagon brass, so putting a stop to them now is unlikely. “This is not a fragmented effort, this is a collective of 30 some generals … including six or seven of the most senior, most credible Marines that I’ve ever worked with,” said Frank Hoffman, distinguished research fellow at the National Defense University and a retired Marine officer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |