Force Design 2030 Debate: The Problem with 'Chowder II'
When President George W. Bush exited the stage in 2009, he was often asked to weigh in on the actions of his successor, President Barack Obama. He replied, “I am not going to spend my time criticizing him…He deserves my silence.” Secretary of Defense James Mattis was also called upon to voice criticism of President Donald Trump following his resignation in 2018. In a 2019 interview, he said, “I don’t want to, on the outside, be making it more difficult for our secretary of defense, secretary of state and president who have to deal with this very complex world…I don’t want to speak to things that I’m no longer responsible for.”
President Bush left office after a difficult second term and received vicious attacks before and after leaving office. Similarly, Secretary Mattis has been ridiculed by President Trump and his surrogates since his resignation. Notwithstanding, both men have acted with grace and humility, recognizing that their successors and those serving with them will face the same and new challenges. To spend time criticizing them and their motives is to undermine them and the institutions they serve.
These examples (and many others) are instructive. The retired class of Marines represented by Chowder II and Compass Points should take note.
Chowder II is a group of retired Marines who regularly take to media and comment threads to attack Force Design 2030, the Marine Corps’ decade-long restructure and redesign of the force. They disagree with the divestment of legacy systems and capabilities and the failure of the U.S. Navy to modify its shipping to support it. However, Chowder II regularly devolves into ad hominem attacks on individual Marines and their motives. The most recent flurry of pieces contains the same unoriginal parade of criticisms about the force being “irrelevant,” a “failure,” and led by “operationally incompetent” leaders.
Even more asinine is a new piece by an anonymous writer who nakedly accuses servicemembers supportive of Force Design 2030 of serving “corporate clients and political patrons.” This anonymous writer implies that proponents of Force Design 2030 (at all levels) are dishonorable by titling his piece “Keep Your Honor Clean, Marines.” These come alongside Chowder II’s own impractical recommendations for force employment, such as using Amphibious Readiness Groups to deter the Houthis or enforce freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait.
Fortunately, most of us reject the Chowder II perspective that the Marine Corps is no longer capable or relevant. Contrary to the detractors’ belief, the institution’s most operationally competent are at the forefront of innovation and progress. Their work is public, and, unlike some, they put their names on it.
From its inception, Force Design 2030 has been implemented as a collective effort by all Marines. In the Commandant’s latest annual update, he emphasized, “[O]ur warfighting capabilities are only as effective as the Marines employing them. Our Marines remain the key to sustaining and improving our competitive advantages.” The Marine Corps has created the Marine Innovation Unit (MIU) for the express purpose of leveraging the diverse backgrounds of individual Marines to accelerate technological advancement, adopt new capabilities, and support Total Force goals.
The Marine Corps regularly recognizes and honors Marines who challenge conventional thinking, propose new policies, and offer solutions to complex problems within Force Design 2030 and across the full spectrum of issues such as talent management, tactics, doctrine, systems, process improvement, etc. A nineteen-year-old corporal received a meritorious service medal for investigating and improving the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) manual for the entire Department of Defense. This month, Manpower & Reserve Affairs announced the winners of its latest “Manpower Modernization Challenge” focused on assignments and retention. Out of over 800 submissions, seventy-two Marines ranging from corporal to lieutenant colonel were honored.
In written publications, speaking engagements, and even social media, thousands of Marines voice their opinions, critical and supportive, about Force Design and other institutional topics. Hundreds of social media accounts are dedicated to sharing ideas on all aspects of Force Design. Many commanders, including the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, regularly follow and engage with these accounts. Again, unlike some people, we all put our names next to our opinions.
“While the basic nature of war is constant, the meaCns and methods…evolve continuously.” (MCDP-1). While the Marine Corps is evolving and looking forward, some continue to look back. They disgrace themselves by attacking the men and women who have the courage to look ahead and find solutions. Calling the institution a failure and irrelevant is to call every Marine a failure and irrelevant. It is nakedly partisan and intended to drive a wedge through the institution, profoundly disrupting good order and discipline. Chowder II does not offer a path forward and shows its true colors in these most recent attacks.
The next generation of Marines are here and have demonstrated their willingness to address the problems that we, not Chowder II, will face. While Chowder II may rage behind pseudonyms, speaking on things for which they no longer have a responsibility, we have a nation pulling for us. We can draw inspiration from the many within our organization who have the courage to speak their minds and propose new ideas at the hot wash, the wargaming tables, and in the field. We still have plenty of work to do and no time to look back. If Chowder II cannot adapt to reality, then we deserve their silence.
About the Author:
Richard Protzmann is an attorney in Newport Beach, California, and a Captain in the United States Marine Corps Reserve. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Marine Corps, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Follow him on X: @rw1699.
Image: Shutterstock.