[continued from previous message]   
      
   just answer Spencer’s questions but rather explained how analysis informed   
   an answer.   
      
   Spencer said he went into the interview process without a front-runner in   
   mind but was drawn to Berger, knowing that the Marine Corps would need a   
   major overhaul in the coming years.   
      
   “You can get change agents — and some are very successful — that just come   
   in and put a 12-volt battery, boom, charge right to the heart, and go”   
   ‘We’re changing. Those of you who can’t take it, you can take a left;   
   we’re all going right,’ ” Spencer said.   
      
   Berger, on the other hand, wanted everyone to come along with his reforms   
   and get as much change implemented as possible.   
      
   “You could see it in his demeaner and the way he led, that a steady hand   
   at the tiller doing something this dramatic was exactly what we needed,”   
   Spencer said.   
      
   Those dramatic changes were revealed July 12, 2019 — one day after Berger   
   was sworn in as commandant. He released a Commandant’s Planning Guidance   
   that portended a fundamental overhaul.   
      
   “Visions of a massed naval armada nine nautical miles off-shore in the   
   South China Sea preparing to launch the landing force in swarms of   
   [surface connectors] are impractical and unreasonable,” he wrote. Instead,   
   Marines would rethink their strategy in light of growing anti-access/area-   
   denial threats, and would collaborate with the Navy to become a sea-   
   control and sea-denial fleet.   
      
   Within 24 hours he released his first thoughts, and within eight months   
   Force Design 2030 was released, kicking off a generational change for the   
   Corps.   
      
   Berger said he didn’t mind the wave of criticism from retired Marine Corps   
   leaders, as debate can be healthy.   
      
   But he said red lines have been crossed since last year.   
      
   A Wall Street Journal op-ed, written by former Navy Secretary Webb,   
   alleged that 22 retired four-star generals signed a private letter to   
   Berger, and that “above 90 percent” of retired general officers were   
   concerned about Force Design 2030.   
      
   “Everybody speaks for themselves; you don’t speak for others,” Berger   
   said. “So when you say all or most or three dozen, or whatever, you better   
   have their concurrence.”   
      
   Berger said another line was crossed when an opposition group hired   
   lobbyists to make their case on Capitol Hill.   
      
   “Congress is the operating area for the sitting commandant, and you don’t   
   wade into there, you don’t try to resist or fight there, you don’t have an   
   active insurgency there. That’s where the commandant operates on behalf of   
   the Marine Corps,” Berger said.   
      
   “The debate is healthy, but once you’ve had the debate and it’s very clear   
   that the organization is headed in a certain direction and is supported by   
   the civilian leadership and is supported by Congress, OK, then you’re   
   done. Then just being loud over and over and over again — unless there’s   
   some new information,” Berger added. “I’m not sure what is the benefit of   
   that.”   
      
   Former combat development head Van Riper, who has led opposition, told   
   Defense News the strong pushback from the retired community had nothing to   
   do with Berger as a person but was the result of “the drastic changes and   
   the nontraditional way in which those changes were handled and executed.”   
      
   “Our Corps made its reputation because of its willingness to close with   
   and destroy the nation’s enemies, and it did this with an infantry-heavy   
   force supported by tanks, cannon artillery, engineers, close air support   
   and dedicated logistics efforts,” he said.   
      
   Changes over time, he added, were “the product of a highly regarded combat   
   development process, which thoroughly vetted new operational methods   
   before implementation.”   
      
   “Force Design 2030 has severely crippled Marine Corps capabilities to   
   respond quickly and effectively to global crises and contingencies across   
   the spectrum of conflict,” he said, noting that Berger may not want the   
   Corps to be a second ground force but that sometimes that’s what the   
   nation demands.   
      
   Dakota Wood, a senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage   
   Foundation think tank, said that while Force Design 2030 is sound, the   
   sales pitch could have gone better.   
      
   Wood noted the Marine Corps began to worry in the 1990s about long-range   
   anti-ship cruise missiles and how they would affect amphibious operations,   
   leading to early acquisition wins like the MV-22 Osprey program and   
   failures like the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, both of which were meant   
   to help Marines get from the ship to shore across greater distances and at   
   higher speeds.   
      
   “What’s interesting about Gen. Berger’s commandancy is he grew up in that   
   whole debate that took place in the pages of the Marine Corps Gazette and   
   in intellectual forums” regarding growing threats to amphibious   
   operations, Wood said. But after 9/11, the Marine Corps was committed to   
   land wars and “lost touch with the sea” in many ways.   
      
   “What Gen. Berger really brought with him into the commandancy is saying:   
   ‘The world has not gotten easier; it’s gotten harder. We are a naval power   
   projection force, not a second army,’ ” Wood added. “I find it stunning   
   that this guy comes into the office and he implements things that the   
   Marine Corps has talked about for 30 years. But change is scary, and it   
   was in the implementation that generated all this criticism.”   
      
   Wood said Berger talked a lot in 2020 about what would change, what the   
   Corps would divest to free up funds for new investments, and what new gear   
   and concepts the service would come to rely on.   
      
   For his part, Berger has acknowledged he should have spent more time   
   talking about the fundamentals of the Marine Corps that would not change.   
      
   However, Wood noted that the divest-to-invest approach, while unpopular,   
   was necessary to make significant change during tight fiscal times.   
      
   “You can either stay with the old Marine Corps and proven, known sorts of   
   things, and actually be irrelevant in your primary mission area, which is   
   naval power projection; or you can adopt these new things, which are   
   really, really good and have been [proved] in the various testing and   
   training and force-on-force exercises, but that means you’re going to have   
   to leave something behind,” Wood said.   
      
   Despite the initial messaging, the analyst said he believes Force Design   
   2030 was the right change, and Berger was the right man to lead it.   
      
   “His legacy — it’s so premature to be talking about that — [is] that he   
   will be seen as one of these pivotal commandants, just like when we   
   shifted from small wars to large-scale amphibious operations going into   
   World War II, and then innovation in the use of helicopters and all the   
   other things — deployed MEUs that were all over the world doing crisis   
   response and all that. So this is a big change for the Corps that enables   
   it to keep pace with changing times.”   
      
   Comments:   
      
   Frank   
   1 day ago   
      
   If I have $5, and then I throw away $2, that is change.  I would argue   
   that that is not a good change for me.  So to say that Berger is a poster   
   child for change is supposed to be a compliment, but it is not necessarily   
   a good change.  Many agree with that position.  Berger's main claim to   
   fame, in terms of change, is that he is rapidly moving the Corps towards   
   irrelevancy.   
      
   -Retired colonel of Marines.   
      
   John n   
   1 day ago   
      
   Not everyone agrees with this guy and what he has "changed".  Getting rid   
   of armor like tanks was not a good idea.  Now they will have to rely on a   
   sister service for this. How well do you really think that will work out   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)