Newly commissioned Marine Corps officers should dedicate themselves to constant learning and the education of those under their command.
What has changed in these three years? First and foremost, the United States military withdrew from Iraq in late 2011, and a determined Afghan president indicates that U.S. troops will soon be out of Afghanistan as well. As long as Hamid Karzai or his successor refuse to sign the bilateral security agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, all troops will be pulled from the country by 2015. This drastic change in the landscape of conflict presents two challenges for my fellow second lieutenants and me. First, how can we competently and graciously command men and women with combat experience when we have none? Second, how do we lead a warfighting organization during peacetime?
In the midst of this, the Marine Corps faces tough decisions at home as it must draw down its forces and balance a checkbook with far less income. Less military spending will mean greater difficulty acquiring the proper equipment for manning and training Marines. In the 2014 budget request, the Office of the Secretary of Defense committed to building an armed force that is “smaller and leaner . . . agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced.”2 The 2014 defense budget projected the Marine Corps’ active-duty forces to shrink to 180,000. New estimates that account for sequestration-required cuts put this number at 175,000 in Fiscal Year 2019.
The Marine Corps, historically the smallest and leanest of the armed services, will be squeezed more tightly. In less than one year, and as the Corps adapts to this frugal environment, we will be responsible for preparing our Marines for the next conflict. Volatile conditions in the Middle East, rising tensions in Asia, and reckless (but unchecked) action by Russia leave plenty of room for us to speculate where Marines will next be deployed. Our job as officers requires us to leverage our education to out-think the challenges that confront us.
A Personal Journey
My own path to the Corps started when I was a young lad—naïve, optimistic, and, as many young boys are, completely infatuated with the military. My childhood best friend moved to the suburbs of sleepy Mobile, Alabama, when we were in the first grade, and common interests quickly cemented our friendship. Over the course of the next five years Trey and I devoured every war movie our parents would allow us to watch—and some they wouldn’t.
Trey and I obsessed over World War II, reading every book we could find; often re-reading the same book two or three times. We could draw and name every plane in the U.S. and British air forces and even many of those in the German Luftwaffe as well. In our minds, battles at Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and Okinawa were fields of glory, not fields of fire. Our young eyes failed to see the blood, pain, or price that each foot of those beaches cost the United States and its Marines. Fifteen years and Marine Corps Recruiting Depot, San Diego quickly brought Trey’s head down from the clouds. Four years at the Naval Academy worked similar magic on my outlook. Our experiences have shaped our understanding of what it truly means to be a Marine.
My understanding of the Marine Corps was heavily influenced by key people along the way. No one I know embodies the Marine Corps ethos better than Mr. Anderson. Retired Major Tim Anderson was my high school principal. The first time I heard him speak was the opening address to all of the students and parents at the beginning of my sophomore year. When I discussed his remarks that evening with my folks I offered this analysis: He’s too soft. I could not have been more wrong, confusing weakness with humility and a soft-spoken manner. In my mind, he still stands out as the quintessential Marine officer, one who embodies the Corps’ values and spirit. He was disciplined, discerning, and determined. While we practiced football, Mr. Anderson ran laps around the field. He ran through the hot, humid weather of south Alabama in the summer. He ran through the rain. Even a quadruple bypass hardly slowed him at all.
‘Read it, Study it, and Take it to Heart’
More important, Mr. Anderson stands out in my mind because he was committed to learning. He was a student of history, and every time I stepped into his office I received a new book recommendation or documentary title. These texts were his teachers, and we as Marine officers would do well to follow his example. To lead Marines who have far more experience than we do we need to commit to the learning process as second lieutenants. In the 1980s General Alfred Gray—who served as the 29th Commandant—instituted the Commandant’s Reading List to invigorate the Corps and encourage the learning process throughout leadership ranks. We may be leaving the Naval Academy and an academic environment, but in the spirit of men like Mr. Anderson and General Gray we should never leave the learning environment. We lead men and women who outrank us in experience by exhibiting a tireless commitment to learn.
During his tenure as Commandant, General Gray also spearheaded a focus on the belief that “every Marine [is] a rifleman.” This initiative inspired the Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, better known as Warfighting. It outlines the basics of war and the Corps’ abiding affection for the principles of maneuver warfare and its constituent parts. In the introduction General Gray writes, “If we cease to refine, expand, and improve our profession, we risk becoming outdated, stagnant, and defeated.”3 The Marine Corps seeks to produce officers who are technically and tactically proficient. To achieve proficiency in both these areas we need to immerse ourselves in Marine Corps doctrine, heeding General Gray’s recommendation to “Read it, study it, and take it to heart.”4 Especially during a time of peace, training and study should be our priorities in order to prepare the Marines under our command.
We are entering a long and proud tradition of service, one that is often sensationalized by the Marine Corps’ excellent recruiting slogans, ads, and videos. “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .” reads the first line of the Marine Hymn. Ask any Marine, and it seems like an entire battalion waded through the lakes surrounding Chapultepec to capture Montezuma’s golden halls or that an equal number of Marine grunts stormed the shores of Tripoli at the Battle of Derna. Marines regale one another with the story of Belleau Wood when the Marines fought so fiercely that the Germans conferred on them the title Teufel Hunden, or Devil Dogs. In fact Teufel Hunden is both grammatically incorrect and meaningless in the German language. These tall tales and inflated history remind me of the fish stories told in the delta of southern Alabama—each time the fisherman retells his story, the fish grows.
However, this unorthodox oral history adds a key element to the Marines’ sense of esprit de corps, and the underpinnings of this tradition are not wholly unfounded. Countless times Marines have proven their worth in places like the Pacific during World War II, Chosin Resevoir during the Korean War, and the first and second battles for Fallujah in the most recent campaign in Iraq. Marines have struggled through some of the fiercest fighting conditions, emerging with their heads held high and their “honor clean.”
As the Class of 2014 commissions into this long, proud (and sometimes sensationalized) service, this same spirit of pride and tradition can be our guide and asset. The Marine Corps’ intense devotion to duty sets it apart from the other military branches. This devotion arrested my attention as a ten-year-old reading from the pages of history books and novels. This devotion inspired Trey to enlist in the same way that it motivates young men and women across the country every year. This devotion was evident every day in the words and actions of Tim Anderson. We all wanted to be a part of this tradition. The Class of 2014 is joining an organization whose past unifies its focus on the future, and as second lieutenants we can use this shared history to effectively lead Marines.
To Lead in Peace, Prepare for War
“What is the difference between education and training?” It was a comfortable fall day and Navy Captain Owen Thorp was just settling into one of his pre-lecture discourses—grandfatherly talks that we endearingly termed “fireside chats.” It was one of our engineering courses, but the 16 Midshipmen in the class had grown accustomed to setting aside the first ten minutes to pick up wisdom from one of our favorite professors. We tentatively hazarded guesses before he finally put an end to our conjecture. “Training equips you to solve problems to which there are known solutions. Education equips you to solve the problems to which solutions are still unknown,” he explained.
As U.S. involvement in Afghanistan draws to a close, volatility reigns across much of the Middle East, and terrorist cells actively seek ways to attack this country and its allies. There are still many problems to which solutions are unknown, so what are the problems we will face as newly minted second lieutenants? What are the conflicts for which we are preparing our Marines?
Warfighting states, “There are two basic military functions: waging war and preparing for war. Any military activities that do not contribute to the conduct of a present war are justifiable only if they contribute to preparedness for a possible future one.”5 It will be our responsibility to train and prepare our Marines for this future war. However, the Marine Corps’ primary purpose is fighting wars, and maintaining focus and identity during a time of peace proves difficult. Many of the men and women under our command are unused to peace, having spent the last few years on deployment in conflict zones. A gunnery sergeant once told me, “Troop welfare is not three hots and a cot. Troop welfare is preparation.” We must prepare our Marines for their strategic role in a complex and multi-dimensional environment.
General Charles C. Krulak, the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps, focused on the strategic importance of tactical level operators, an idea central to 21st century strategy. The idea of the “strategic corporal” grows in importance as social media and news-sharing devices become more ubiquitous. The actions of lance corporals and second lieutenants alike can instantly be broadcast to the United States and the world. One of our biggest challenges will be successfully navigating this highly dimensional battle space, made more complex through the instant availability of information. Making the right choice begins by conditioning ourselves to think all the way through the effects of our actions. The most junior Marines must learn to place themselves at the 20,000-foot level, and it will be our job to teach them. In effect, it is our responsibility to educate our Marines, challenge them to think ahead, and provide them with the tools and training necessary to maintain self-awareness in stressful situations.
A multi-dimensional battle space demands a high caliber of Marine. Future conflicts will require split-second decision-making, a process that is only possible if decisions can be delegated down to the lowest level. In uni-dimensional conflicts—such as those fought during the Napoleonic Wars—centralization of command was practicable. However, modern warfare includes water, land, air, and cyberspace domains, and decentralized command diminishes the computational burden placed on unit commanders and reduces latency in observation-action feedback loops. We will be a more effective fighting force if we teach our Marines how to frame and solve problems, and education will make this a reality. In this manner, education equips our Marines to understand the issue at the heart of each challenge, and decentralized command empowers them to take the appropriate action to overcome the challenge.
An Officer’s Burden
The U.S. military is an integrated part of society—an organic reflection of the society that it seeks to protect. The tightly bound relationship shared by the Marine Corps and the American people is important for the health of the nation. In 1957 Brigadier General Victor “Brute” Krulak penned a note in response to a question posed by then-Commandant General Randoloh Pate, “Why does the U.S. need a Marine Corps?” In a reply that has become quite well known, Krulak wrote, “We exist today—we flourish today—not because of what we know we are, or what we know we can do, but because of what the grassroots of our country believes we are and believes we can do.”6
The Marine Corps, he continues, fulfills three of the nation’s expectations. First, when trouble comes, Marines are prepared to meet it head on. Second, Marines win the wars they fight. And third, “. . . our Corps is downright good for the manhood of our country; that the Marines are masters of a form of unfailing alchemy which converts un-oriented youths into proud, self-reliant stable citizens—citizens into whose hands the nation’s affairs may safely be entrusted.”7 By accepting our commission as Marine Corps officers, we accept the burden of meeting the high expectations placed on us by the nation.
In the vein of Brigadier General Krulak’s reply, we are accepting the burden of caring for the nation’s sons and daughters. We are expected to properly and effectively prepare our Marines. We are expected to make the right choices and win our nation’s wars. Most important, we are expected to participate in the process of creating a proud, self-reliant, and stable citizenry. Society lends its men and women to the Marine Corps and expects them to return better for the experience. We are the gatekeepers and the caregivers.
Krulak concludes by writing, “. . . in terms of cold mechanical logic, the United States does not need a Marine Corps. However, for good reasons which transcend cold logic, the United States wants a Marine Corps.”8 The fragile relationship between the society of the United States and the Marine Corps will be entrusted to us. The United States wants a Marine Corps because its people trust the Marine Corps. We have the burden of protecting that trust.
1. 2ndLT Zachary Wilson, “At the Precipice of Reality,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, (June 2011) vol. 137, 64–66, www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-06/precipice-reality.
2. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (comptroller), United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request Overview, April 2013, http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
3. MCDP-1, Warfighting, Preface.
4. Ibid.
5. MCDP-1, Warfighting, 67.
6. Victor H. Krulak, First to Fight, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1999), Preface.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.