Archives: Gazette Magazines

by Maj Breck L Perry

There are far too many units in the Marine Corps that fail to prioritize and formalize PME. Focus of effort goes to training and developing techniques and procedures in correlation with training and readiness mission-essential tasks. Perpetual turnover, fluctuating training exercise and employment plans, and surging operational tempo typically consume commands, and PME becomes a “nice to have” instead or a priority. This is counter to our maneuver warfare doctrine and a disservice to the Marines and Sailors İn our charge. Fortunately, there is a movement underway to reinvigorate maneuver warfare in our Corps’ culture. In his FRAGO 01!2016 Advance to Contact, the Commandant of the Marine Corps decried: we will re-emphasize that Marines and Sailors of all ranks have the responsibility to educate themselves. Commanders will enable educational opportunities and will conduct unit level PME for all ranks.1

The Commandant’s vision implies the need for commanders at all levels to design and institute a formalized PME plan within their respective units. The purpose of this article is to assist in that endeavor and provide a model that attempts to reinvigorate maneuver warfare at the battalion level. This model is undergirded by our warfighting doctrine and organized along five lines of effort (LOEs): history, will, leadership, adversary, and advanced warfighting, with the end state being to create the best thinkers, decision makers, trainers, planners, and teachers in the Marine Corps. (See Figure 1.)

Approach

Training and education are mutually supporting terms, but they are not synonymous. Training is about skill, focusing on task performance and effectiveness, techniques and procedures, and the building of effective habits of thought and action. Education is about the will, concentrating primarily on thinking and decision making, aimed at cultivating military judgment, implicit communication, and trust. Doctrine provides the common language and philosophy, while education provides the understanding of the doctrine within fighting organizations. The amalgamation of intellect, audacity, and tactical proficiency has produced victory in battle for over 4,000 years. It is a moral imperative that officers and SNCOs possess an insatiable desire to “teach and learn, coach and be coached, and possess and cultivate an innate curiosity and appetite for understanding.”

MCDP 1, Warfighting, should be the first resource thoroughly studied prior to developing a PME program. MCDP 1-3, Tactics, should be the second. MCDP 1-3, Chapter 8 vividly describes the systemic, mutually supporting relationships between doctrine, education, training, and operational employment.

Doctrine establishes the philosophy and practical framework for how we fight. Education develops the understanding, creativity, military judgment, and the background essential for effective battlefield leadership. Training follows doctrine and develops the tactical and technical proficiency that underlies all successful military action. Individual and group exercises serve to integrate training and education, producing a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The lessons learned from training and operational experience then modify doctrine.2 (See Figure 2.)

Commanders intent. The cornerstone to PME plan development is the commander’s intent. It is also recommended to go two levels up when conducting an initial analysis on crafting the model. The commander’s intent should be interwoven throughout the model, and the commander’s end state articulated up front. Today’s generation of officers and SNCOs should understand the purpose for the PME program and what İs expected of them.

Commander’s guidance. Dialogue pertaining to LOEs needs to occur between the PME coordinator and the commander to achieve the objectives or end state of the unit’s program. Recommended LOEs are described below:

* LOE 1-History. Focused on the lessons learned from over 4,000 years of recorded military history, in pursuit of developing the 4,000-year-old mind. As Gen Alfred M. Gray told us: “If you want a new idea, read an old book.”3 Central points: history and legacy of the battalion and lessons learned in previous conflicts.

* LOE 2-Will. Focused on the development of decision makers who can thrive in chaos, uncertainty, constant change, and friction. Central points: nurturing the maneuver–warfare mindset and truly understanding the human dimension of war.

* LOE 3-Leadershİp. Leadership is the foundation of any command. Focused on developing the moral, mental, and physical capabilities of the battalion’s leaders. Central points: building of trust and the warrior ethos.

* LOE 4-Adversary. Oriented on the ever-pervasİve and mutating enemy threats that seek to eradicate the American way of life, from radical, terrorist groups to near-peer competitors. Studying the current operating environment and potential scenarios the battalion may fight İs essential. Central points: transnational terrorist groups and near-peer state actors.

* LOE 5-Advanced Warfighting: This LOE İs loosely coupled from the PME program. It İs a weekly seminar that is strictly voluntary and managed by the operations officer. The purpose of this LOE is to have discussions on doctrinal warfighting articles and publications in order to discuss creative and adaptive ways to fight and win. It corresponds directly to the tactical tenets in MCDP 1-3, is focused on the tactical level of war, and aims to stimulate outside-the-box thinking. Central points: offense, defense, shoot/move/ communicate-related topics. In addition, outputs from this LOE drive training and experimentation for future field exercises and facilitate SOP refinement.

Methods. The PME program utilizes multiple educational techniques employed across the breadth of the program. These techniques include but are not limited to guided discussions, staff rides, guest speakers, decision-forcing case studies, videos, and critiques. Most PMEs will require a “read-ahead” for preceding preparation. PMEs are recorded and archived for a podcast that Marines can access and reference at their leisure.

Writing requirements. There should be a monthly writing requirement for a Marine Corps Gazette article submission for the battalion, apportioned by company. For example: Fox CompanyNovember, Goli Company-December, etc. The topic İs of the company commander’s choosing. (See Figure 3 for an example.)

Assessment and redesign. The PME schedule is published semiannually with a quarterly assessment conducted. The assessment consists of the PME coordinator and CO having a dialogue on ways to improve the program, projecting the next six months, and canvassing the commanders and staff for feedback on the rough-cut schedule provided by the PME coordinator. This assessment is vital to ensure the PME program remains relevant and correlates with the operational requirements for the battalion. For example, a battalion compositing as a battalion landing team might want to focus effort on the Leadership LOE İn order to build cohesion and esprit de corps and inculcate commander’s intent to the SNCOs and officers newly integrated into the team. The next month’s PME plan may want to focus effort on the history of amphibious operations in the History LOE, then transition into the Adversary LOE to discuss recent enemy tactics against coalition forces İn Iraq and Syria. The top-down guidance is given. Bottom-up refinement İs provided. The result intended is buy-in and stewardship of the program.

Roles and Responsibilities

PME coordinator. The officer and SNCO PME coordinator should be the battalion executive officer. As the second in command of the battalion, the XO is responsible for the leadership development and mentorship of the staff and officers. The XO has the pulse of the unit, a close relationship with the sergeant major for senior enlisted counsel, and a high-fidelity grasp of the commander’s intent. The XO should have adept teaching and coaching skills and a drive to instill those traits İn others. The XO is responsible for a PME plan focused on four of the five LOEs: History, Leadership, Will, and Adversary.

Assistant PME coordinator. This is a collateral duty usually assigned to the assistant intelligence officer (S-2 Alpha). This officer İs ideally one of the best educated young officers in the battalion and İs skilled in organizing, coordinating, and communicating. Primary responsibilities for this billet are to coordinate logistical support for offsite PME, record each PME, supervise the coordination of guest speakers and distinguished guests, and archive the PME for future use.

Advanced warfighting coordinator. The Advanced Warfighting LOE is the province of the operations officer. The operations officer fights the battalion and always seeks to gain advantage over the enemy to lead to their collapse and defeat. Associated with the battalion TEEP, the operations officer provides weekly articles, topics, and coordinating instructions centered around the CO’s guidance. The operations officer collaborates with the CO on teaching seminars and preparing the appropriate resources: maps/interactive tactical decision games, media, etc.

Derivatives: Implicit Communication and Military Judgment

There are many obvious benefits to a formalized and deliberate PME plan. Critical thinking, teaching, and reasoning skills become sharpened and refined. Creativity İs enhanced. Verbal and written communication skills mature. However, the two most essential abilities developed through a consistent PME program are implicit communication skills as they relate to a command and military judgment as it relates to the individual decision maker. MCDP 1-3 points out that Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson didn’t lead the British fleet through semaphore. He invested time İn developing understanding, sharing experience, coaching, and instilling his commander’s intent amongst his captains.

Implicit communications must be developed over time. This requires actions that strengthen unit cohesion and mutual trust. This requires keeping people together in their units and stable in their assignments. It implies keeping good teams together. It means developing a band of brothers in our units, as Admiral Horatio Nelson did. He spent many evenings with his captains gathered in the cabin of his flagship talking over tactics, ways they might fight different engagements, how they would defeat this or that opponent. From those evenings came a shared way of thinking so strong that, at Trafalgar, Nelson needed only to signal ‘England expects every man will do his duty,’ and ‘Close action.’ Sometimes words have meaning beyond the normally obvious meaning because of shared experiences and understanding.^

Military judgment is the other derivative skill of PME. It İs the nucleus of adept decision makers and tacticians and the catalyst of decisive action.

Military judgment is a developed skill that is honed by the wisdom gained through experience. Combined with situational awareness, military judgment allows [Marines] to identify emerging patterns, discern critical vulnerabilities, and concentrate combat power … Marine leaders must be able to cut to the heart of a situation by identifying its important elements, developing a sound plan, and making clear decisions.^

Most young officers have limited combat experience. Formalized unit PME provides a vehicle by which Marines can harvest wisdom from the vicarious experience of historic military leaders, educate themselves on an adaptive enemy, or garner lessons learned from recent tactical experiments with emerging technology.

Conclusion

All commanders should consider the professional development of their subordinates a principal responsibility of command. Commanders should foster a personal teacher-student relationship with their subordinates. Commanders are expected to conduct a continuing professional education program for their subordinates that includes developing militaryjudgment and decisionmaking \siĄ and teaches general professional subjects and specific technical subjects pertinent to occupational specialties. Useful tools for general professional development include supervised reading programs, map exercises, war games, battle studies, and terrain studies. Commanders should see the development of their subordinates as a direct reflection on themselves.^

MCDP 1 gives resounding and unblemished guidance on PME expectations for all commands İn the Corps. This article focused solely on an officer and SNCO PME plan with the intention of assisting and supplementing units with a purpose-driven PME model to employ. This model is far from perfect, but it is modular, sustainable, and an enduring priority of the command.

by 1stLts J.L. Currie & Matt Hartley

We observe a conversation happening across the Marine Corps, a conversation that asks, “Is the Marine Corps heading in the right direction?” Within the context of this broader question, devoted and enthusiastic officers and enlisted Marines are asking: What ?s the future of amphibious warfare? How can we adapt to (the elusive concept of) fourth generation warfare? How can we marry the rapid pace of technological development with a traditional warfighting organization? This, we believe, ?s a positive response to the Commandant’s call for disruptive thinkers. Much of this debate is centered around questions that are as interesting and exciting as they are large in magnitude, for which no obvious answers or solutions exist. This has been evident in the debate surrounding Capt Joshua Waddell’s article, “Innovation: And other things that brief well” (MCG, Febl7). As young lieutenants, we feel the frustrations expressed ?n Capt Waddell’s argument, but we also acknowledge Capt Jeffrey E. Little’s logical response ?n “A Modest Rebuttal: Response to ‘Innovation: and other things that brief well.'”

Like many thinkers across the Marine Corps, these questions have been the background to our own conversations. In this article, we hope that our analysis offers something unique: a specific focus on individual Marines operating at the platoon, company, and battalion levels. Instead of attempting to address the apex question (“Is the Marine Corps heading in the right direction?”) or other, larger questions, like the ones previously mentioned, we address practices on our level by asking, “How does cell phone and email use affect the way we operate and plan?” This question may seem trivial, innocuous, and possibly silly, but we believe it contains broader moral and existential importance.

We are not arguing for a return to simpler communications technology or, in the extreme, none at all; we argue for discipline: rules on using these technologies consistent with our warfighting philosophy and modern science. We purport to fight maneuver warfare, but ungoverned availability and access to these communications technologies is antithetical to our warfighting philosophy. They deprive us of initiative, reduce efficiency, and degrade effectiveness. A total ban is regressive, but rules and etiquette for bounded use are both practical and necessary. The first section of this article sets the foundation, reviewing maneuver warfare theory, introducing fundamental documents, and defining key concepts. In the second section, we offer comments and observations from our own experience. In the final section and conclusion, we reiterate that discipline is critical, providing useful recommendations for regaining the initiative in daily operations.

Concepts & Definitions

The foundational publication of the Marine Corps’ warfighting doctrine, MCDP 1, establishes maneuver warfare as the standard by which the organization executes military action. MCDP 1 defines maneuver warfare as

a warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot coped

Recent Marine Corps publications such as Expeditionary Force 21, (Washington, DC: HQMC, 2014), and Marine Corps Operating Concept, (Washington, DC: HQMC, 2016), review and reinforce maneuver warfare‘s central tenets of speed, decentralized command, and rapid decision making. The Marine Corps Operating Concept reaffirms maneuver warfare as the method to ensure the Marine Corps defeats its future enemies.2 Theory and practice, however, hardly align. Juxtapose the central tenets of maneuver warfare against daily battalion operations across the Marine Corps. We believe we fail at the lowest levels to execute the maneuver philosophy envisioned by theorists such as Col John Boyd, USAF(Ret).

Maneuver warfare is ultimately about disrupting and out-cycling an opponent’s observation-orientationdecision-action process, also known as the OODA loop. Col Boyd developed the OODA loop as a theory for how human beings make decisions. He first explained it in Destruction and Creation. He further examined this concept and fleshed out the implications and principles inherent in maneuver warfare in his groundbreaking brief, “Patterns of Conflict.” These ideas laid the intellectual basis for Capt John Schmitt’s publication, commissioned and endorsed by Marine Corps Commandant Gen Alfred Gray as FMFM 1, Warfighting. Throughout the creation of Warfighting, Schmitt conferred with fellow maneuver enthusiasts, including Gen Bernard Trainor, Col Mike Wyly, and Gen Paul Van Riper, to refine and capture the major tenets of maneuver warfare.3 First published in 1989 as FMFM 1, it was later revised in 1997 to become MCDP 1, Warfighting.

In this article, we focus on three key concepts from maneuver warfare theory: initiative, decentralized command, and commander’s intent. In our analysis, we use these concepts as the standard for measuring our daily operating effectiveness. Initiative, as defined ?n MCDP 1, is “the willingness to act on one’s own judgment.”^ Boyd argued initiative was a requirement for shaping and adapting to change, that the warfighter must avoid passivity.3 Decentralization ?s a prerequisite for inspiring initiative. Decentralized command enables high tempo in the face of uncertainty, disorder, and the ever-changing events of combat.6 The imperative for action, however, must still be in harmony with the larger organization’s goals. To achieve this effect, commander’s intent harmonizes initiative with the overarching tactical, operational, or strategic goal. It is the commander’s intent that allows subordinates the freedom to deviate from the original plan as circumstances change yet remain focused on achieving the end state.7

Practiced ?n concert, these concepts have the unifying effect of rapid decision making; and the ability to make decisions faster than the enemy is the essence of Boyd’s theory and maneuver warfare. The combatant who acts quickest generates the tempo and controls the momentum of the conflict. The Marine Corps, down to the smallest unit, moves through this decision-making cycle. As such, it is imperative we understand and analyze the effect communications technology has on this cycle and our ability to make decisions.8

Email &? Cell Phones: What’s the Big Deal?

Despite the focus in recent months and the previous few years on disaggregated operations, it remains unattainable if access to cell phones and email remains unconstrained in training. Warfighting asserts that, “In order to develop initiative among junior leaders, the conduct of training-like combat-should be decentralized.”^ Even in peacetime, training must mirror combat. Warfighting continues,

subordinate commanders must make decisions on their own initiative, based on their understanding of senior’s intent, rather than passing information up the chain of command and waiting for the decision to be passed downT

Unrestrained email and cell phone use eliminates the need for clear commander’s intent; it strips the decision-making power from subordinates. It ruins our ability to communicate clearly and implicitly. The end result ?s an organization that does not train like it fights. The daily habits and practices needed for decentralized operations are slowly whittled down. When the day of reckoning comes and we find ourselves again involved in a conflict, will we have the experience or understanding to create a coherent decision-making cycle? Who needs an enemy to disorient us when we can do it ourselves? In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Too often, our ability to work in solitude and think through our most difficult challenges is interrupted by the constant stream of emails cluttering our inbox. If, as stated in MCDP 1, “the mind is an officer’s principal weapon” and “the military profession ?s a thinking profession,” then only through solitude can we discover the solutions that will truly make us a better force. We often avoid our most difficult problems, inadvertently choosing the distraction of email. Rather than taking the time to face truly essential problems and improve our units, it appears we are merely reacting to the day s email traffic. In the book Focus, Daniel Goleman references a Harvard business study that examined the inner work lives of a team tasked with completing innovative challenges. The study found the most critical aspect to the team’s success was protected time to think freely within a “creative cocoon.” 11 As William Deresiewicz argued in his speech “Solitude and Leadership,” leaders need protected time to think through problems, focus their efforts, and decide which actions are truly important for success and improvement. Solitude allows us the time to clarify our thoughts and beliefs, enabling us to focus our efforts with greater resolve and precision.12 Gen Moshe Dayan, an Israeli Defense Force commander who helped orchestrate the exemplary display of maneuver warfare by the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1967 Six Day War, was known to reserve time to think in solitude.13 We have too few leaders who spend time deeply thinking and too many reacting to distractions.

We confuse busy work with progressive work. Answering and receiving emails (busy work) gives the illusion of progressive work because it ?s a timeconsuming endeavor leading to a constant shift ?n focus. As Herbert Simon, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, said, “a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.”14 With email, each new “ding” becomes a new priority. As a result, we cannot focus on one problem long enough to develop a solution, “Patterns of Conflict” advises maneuver warfare practitioners to “present many simultaneous and sequential happenings to generate confusion and disorder.”13 Every time a message pops into our inbox, we are forced to orient on an entirely new information set, inflicting damage to our own OODA loop. To paraphrase Warfighting, email creates a rapidly deteriorating situation in which we are no longer able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. Instead, we are left with the impression that we accomplished something because we were busy throughout the day.

To be clear, cell phones and email are not inherently problematic-how we use them is. Ultimately, how we use communications technology is a direct reflection of how we communicate:

We believe that implicit communication-to communicate through mutual understanding, using a minimum of key, well-understood phrases or even anticipating each others thoughts-is a faster, more effective way to communicate than through the use of detailed, explicit instructions. We develop this ability through familiarity and trust, which are based on a shared philosophy and shared experience.

This concept has several practical implications. First, we should establish long-term working relationships to develop the necessary familiarity and trust. Second, key people-“actuals”-should talk directly to one another when possible, rather than through communicators or messengers. Third, we should communicate orally when possible, because we communicate in how we talk-our inflections and tone of voice. Fourth, we should communicate in person when possible because we communicate also through our gestures and bearing.1*’

We wager that the entire Marine Corps violates these four practical implications. The misuse of communications technology decreases face-to-face interaction, preventing the necessary development of familiarity and trust. We observe our seniors, subordinates, and even ourselves choosing to use a cell phone or landline to speak with someone across the street or even in the same building. Furthermore, orders and warning orders passed through text message increase uncertainty, confusion, and disorder-explicit communication at its worst.

Without disciplined structures governing the use of emails and cell phones, we will continue to delay decisions, shift priorities, and inhibit our ability to think through complex challenges. Rather than operate off implicit communications, staffs increasingly turn to the explicit communications found in email, slowing tempo and increasing the time for action. Leaders become more hesitant to make decisions, waiting until they have complete information. This dependence on explicit communications creates a mentality that centralizes command and develops a pattern of behavior grossly opposed to the guidance expressed in MCDP 1. A flood of email traffic or the constant access to a cell phone reduces the clearness of commander’s intent.

The Information Age brought us the Internet, the smartphone, and email. As these technologies have progressed, instantaneous access has become commonplace. Knowing when and how to use and access these technologies is the key; otherwise, undisciplined use results in intellectual, cognitive, and psychological torpor. Furthermore, access to this technology without restraint has operational side effects. It robs us of initiative and lessens the importance of commander’s intent. It degrades the quality of our communications, placing emphasis on explicit communications. Finally, it inhibits our ability to practice decentralized command and therefore disaggregated operations.

Conclusion Recommendations

There ?s great value in the speed, range, and ease of use provided by cell phones and email. These systems can enhance command and control in Marine Corps units but only through discipline and clearly defined boundaries. The rampant email abuse and cell phone addiction throughout the Marine Corps destroys our ability to solve the right problems. We regress as a warfighting organization and fail ?n our execution of maneuver warfare by remaining addicted to and dependent on these systems.

Discipline ?s what separates mobs from armies. As John Keegan points out ?n The Face of Battle, discipline has created and upheld victorious military units for decades:

Inside every army is a crowd struggling to get out… For a crowd is the antithesis of an army, a human assembly animated not by discipline but by mood, by the play of inconstant and potentially infectious emotion which, ifit spreads, is fatal to an army’s subordination.12

Gen John A. Lejeune draws a clear connection between discipline and morale in his 1921 address to the Army General Staff College: the more disciplined a unit, he argues, the higher their morale.18 Rules, limits, and guidance for cell phones and email are not merely matters of efficiency and effectiveness. As Lejeune points out, the morale of the fighting unit is at stake.

Although anecdotal, we believe the doctrinal argument compelling: Constant access to cell phones and email degrades our ability to implement maneuver warfare. The addiction to cellular devices has other pernicious effects: it worsens sleep,^ mirrors substance addiction,20 and increases anxiety.21 Rules need to be written based on operational concepts and scientific evidence.

As a starting point, we propose the following recommendations for managing cell phone and email use at the battalion level:

* Personal cell phones will not be used between 0800 and 1600 during the work day.

* Limit email use to two hours during the work day.

* Communication should be done in person.

* Communications required to occur over a phone will be made through a DSN (Defense Switched Network) number.

As a result of these (or similar) boundaries, we believe units will improve their ability to solve problems, increase individual initiative, exploit implicit communications, and generate a faster OODA loop consistent with commander s intent.

Writing and enforcing rules for email and cell phone use consistent with history, science, and our warfighting philosophy seems to be common sense. We believe the effect will be dramatic and immediate. We encourage all commanders to institute and enforce stricter rules governing cell phone and email availability during accepted working hours.

For our part, we already have and will continue to do so.

by the Staff, MCWL

The Marine Corps experience in the 21st century so far has been characterized by longterm stability and counterinsurgency operations against insurgent forces and terrorist organizations, a situation which necessitated a focus on the demands of land operations against such enemies. However, the evolving nature of the operating environment now requires a recalibration toward restoring our maritime focus and ensuring our decisive advantage over peer and nearpeer adversaries. The operating environment of the 21st century requires a MAGTF trained and equipped to counter emerging threats and exploit emerging technology and capabilities.

The Marine Corps Operating Concept {MOC), {HQMC, Washington, DC: 2016) guides our collective efforts to ensure the Marine Corps’ future readiness and relevancy. It is intended to describe in broad terms how the Marine Corps will operate, fight, and win in 2025 and beyond, as well as to shape our actions as we design and develop the capabilities and capacity of the future force. The MOC describes the 21st century MAGTF as one that:

conducts maneuver warfare in the physical and cognitive dimensions of conflict to generate and exploit psychological, technological, temporal, and spatial advantages over the adversary. The 21st Century MAGTF executes maneuver warfare through a combined arms approach that embraces information warfare as indispensable for achieving complementary effects across five domains-air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace. The 21st Century MAGTF avoids linear, sequential, and phased approaches to operations and blends maneuver warfare and combined arms to generate combat power needed for simultaneity of action in its full range of missions. The 21st century MAGTF operates and fights at sea, from the sea, and ashore as an integrated part of the Naval force and the larger Combined/Joint force.

Essential to how we operate is our identity as a maritime force. The Marine Corps operates as a forward naval expeditionary force allowing persistent engagement within potential threat areas. Operating forward, the Marine Corps is postured within contested space under potential adversary threats. In the event of potential conflict, the MAGTF can distribute and fight forward to hold key terrain and assist in maritime security, deterrence, and sea control by denying freedom of action along key sea lines of communication. The key to fighting forward is integrating into the naval/joint force, winning the battle of signatures, maintaining maritime domain awareness, and integrating Marine Corps strike capabilities (aviation, unmanned swarms, and missiles) in the naval fight for sea control.

Currently, MAGTFs employ effective and relevant capabilities across air, land, and sea domains. To make the MAGTF more relevant and capable ?n the future, the Marine Corps must integrate space and employ cyberspace capabilities ?n addition to enhancing our capabilities across all five domains. Once realized, the Marine Corps will achieve the vision laid out in theMOC to provide an enhanced, expeditionary, multi-domain force to the nation.

The Marine Corps is pursuing technological enhancements to support amphibious and expeditionary operations so that they may maneuver in a distrib- uted manner with reduced signatures in order to mass and concentrate effects as the mission dictates. Coincident with technology integration is the development of new and updated doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures to fully realize the potential of the 21st century MAGTF.

This effort is underpinned by a campaign of learning that integrates force development and Operating Forces’ concerns to understand and solve our most vexing warfighting challenges. The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, as a driver of innovation, has re-instituted the SEA DRAGON experiment campaign designed to explore the changes necessary to thrive ?n the future operating environment. Through the development of an innovation portal, MCWL captures the best ideas from individual Marines to identify best practices and incorporate emerging ideas into the experimentation campaign.

We have actively sought to create enduring relationships between concept developers and technology developers through our Advanced Naval Technical Experiment (ANTX) series. This series was started with the Ship-to-Shore Maneuver Experimentation and Exploration (S2ME2) Task Force, established by the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation. This process pairs Naval Warfare Center engineers with operational Marines in an in-depth examination of an operational problem set to see what capabilities are required and what technology is ?n the realm of possibility to help solve ?t. After a series of workshops, wargames, and exercises, best-of-breed technologies from industry, academia, and government labs are assessed and selected for rapid prototyping, limited fielding, or entry into the acquisition process.

In 2017, MCWL conducted a S2ME2 demonstration held at Camp Pendleton, CA. The S2ME2 provided a forum for civilian entrepreneurs and government scientists to showcase new and innovative technologies for Marine Corps evaluation in an innovative program to accelerate the identification of new, operationally relevant technologies. This initiative ?s one component of an expansive program to identify and advance promising capabilities in areas of networked command and control; networked sensors and weapons, autonomy, manned-unmanned teaming, and robotics; precision effects; and cognitive computing.

In 2018, the ANTX rapid prototyping process will be Urban 5th Generation (U5G) operations, focusing on the company level and below. At Camp Pendleton, CA, Operating Forces will assess technologies suited to urban operations over a two-week period. Promising technologies will be identified for rapid prototyping and inclusion in follow-on experiments or large-scale exercises. In 2019, MCWL will shift the ANTX series to look at technologies that will support expeditionary advanced-base operations.

Ultimately, it will be through these and other innovative efforts that the Marine Corps will develop the methods and means to achieve the following ideas as listed ?n the MOC:

* Integrate the naval force to fight at and from the sea: To support deterrence, sea control, and power projection, the Marine Corps must operate in all domains as part of an integrated naval force. To do so requires additional capability and capacity in a wider variety of naval platforms, integrated Navy/Marine commands and staffs, tailored capabilities that support sea control and power projection missions, integrated command structures, and shared naval concepts such as littoral operations in a contested environment.

* Devise and refine an approach to operate from more diverse platforms and expeditionary advanced bases as part of a naval campaign.

* Employ fire support systems (antiship missiles and unmanned swarms) to affect sea control.

* Integrate weapons, sensors, and command and control into naval command and control architecture, supported by expanded experimentation and naval exercises.

* Ensure the interoperability of Marine and Navy command and control systems while increasing integration with combined/joint force maritime component commands.

* Evolve the MAGTF: The 21st century MAGTF must retain the essential advantages conferred by its inherent flexibility. The MAGTF requires the ability to fight as an integrated naval and joint partner integrating command, control, and informational tools as well as MAGTF and special operations capabilities; the ability to rapidly composite MAGTFs ?n forward locations; the ability to fight as distributable forces; the exploitation of automation technologies; and a total force approach to readiness.

* Pursue an aggressive wargaming experimentation exercise program that leverages thinking adversaries, force-on-force training, and live, virtual, and constructive capabilities.

* Develop capabilities that support a forward expeditionary posture.

* Develop autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to enhance how we operate.

* Fully leverage advanced aviation capabilities that contribute to force protection through a layered a?r-defense capability, combining airborne defensive counter-air with persistent ground-based air defense and integrating command and control and networked sensors to allow target engagement closer to a weapon’s maximum effective range, effectively increasing the range and depth of protection coverage.

* Operate with resilience in a contested-network environment: The modern battlefield is saturated in information and digital network technology, which presents both opportunities and challenges. We must maneuver in the electromagnetic spectrum, establish and defend networks that support increased situational awareness and higher-tempo operations, exploit networking for rapid and precise fire support, utilize the processing power of modern computers at the tactical edge, and expand and enhance military intelligence concepts.

* Reduce the electromagnetic signature of the 21st century MAGTF and employ low-signature, reliable digital communications networks.

* Provide persistent, multi-spectral battlespace awareness for the MAGTF through a family of sensorequipped manned and unmanned aircraft.

* Provide a protected, long-range, integrated command and control network that enhances the capacity to gain and maintain an understanding of friendly and enemy environments.

* Develop layers of persistent multispectral armed unmanned systems to cue, target, and provide kinetic and non-kinetic fires.

* Institutionalize the MEF information groups to employ informationrelated capabilities such as electronic warfare, cyber warfare, and spacebased systems.

* Develop and train a viable missioncommand framework to continue operations when communications are degraded or denied and positive control is not feasible.

* Enhance our ability to maneuver: Operating ?n all five dimensions requires maneuver in and through five dimensions. This includes naval and littoral maneuver, a broader concept of combined arms that includes information warfare, enhancing our ability to fight in and through urban environments and complex terrain, improving the mobility of ground combat and logistics forces, employing a mix of light and heavy forces, sustaining distributed forces through expeditionary logistics, and exploiting operational energy.

* Employ modern, highly mobile and protected vehicles, connectors, and mobility systems incorporating unmanned sub-surface, ground, and air vehicles.

* Enhance our armored mobility to support maneuver on land and from the sea.

* Develop effective stand-off detection and breaching capabilities for operations in the urban littorals.

* Develop a hybrid logistics system (built on existing capabilities + AM, unmanned distribution, sense and respond capabilities, and improved integration with naval, joint, and Defense Logistics Agency enterprises) to support distributable forces across a dynamic and fully contested battlespace-because iron mountains of supply and lakes of liquid fuel are liabilities and not supportive of maneuver warfare.

* Employ unmanned systems and automation at all echelons and in every domain because mastering the man-machine interface offers a revolution ?n military operations.

* Continue to experiment with concepts and emerging technologies to enhance energy storage, distribution, and throughput capability to support maneuver forces.

* Reduce our dependency on fuel using emerging energy generation technologies.

* Exploit the competence of the individual Marine: With the emergence and proliferation of new technologies and capabilities, the only distinguishing feature between our forces and our adversaries’ may be the qualities of the individual Marine. The power of the MAGTF rests squarely on the quality of our individual Marines. Current Marines have grown up and thrived in a digital, interconnected, federated, and fast-paced environment. Our young Marines are naturally adept at creatively employing an ever-changing set of tools. The Marine Corps must continue to adapt itself as an institution in order to take advantage of those strengths, from the bottom up, while we cultivate the strong moral and ethical foundation demanded by our complex operating environment. Recognizing that the U.S. Marine ?s the Marine Corps’ decisive and unique advantage, the Service must expand opportunities and mechanisms for Marines to reach their full potential, using the training and education continuum to leverage their unique strengths and skills. The Marine Corps can achieve this vision using tough and realistic training against a thinking and determined adversary and by incorporating technology that augments the capabilities of the individual Marine.

* Expand enlisted education opportunities and reinforce MOS progression training to foster Marines as tactical and technical experts in their field.

* Incorporate live, virtual, and constructive training events against a realistic and adaptive adversary to fully exercise and strengthen decision-making skills across the force.

* Adopt human resources systems to better foster unit cohesion, professional development, and readiness.

* Institutionalize “trust-based” tactics through leaders that coach and mentor through mission commandstyle orders and foster team-focused command climate at all levels.

* Set the moral, mental, and physical standards for Marines across the MAGTF through a mission-driven perspective that fully recognizes the demands on expeditionary forces conducting operations ?n austere and uncertain environments.

* Develop leaders at all echelons who know how to fight in the complex terrain of densely populated urban environments and understand the power of information and information warfare because “fighting hard” and “fighting smart” are mutually reinforcing.

* Design and implement manpower systems, policies, and processes to attract, develop, retain, and support highly qualified Marines and civilian employees prepared for the rigors of 21st century expeditionary operations.

* Utilize 21st Century Combined Arms across all domains: This requires using all available means across all domains to confront the enemy with multi-faceted, reinforcing, and rapidly shifting dilemmas in order to shatter his cohesion, corrupt his decision making, and increase friction. It ?s vítal that the Marine Corps achieves a tight level of integration combining the physical and cognitive effects, kinetic and nonkinetic, lethal and non-lethal, across all capabilities.

* Provide enhanced, long-range precision, lethal and non-lethal fires as well as the ability to mass effects at ranges beyond potential adversaries.

* Provide fires that deny access to sea lines of communication from expeditionary locations ashore.

* Develop swarming, armed air, surface, and sub-surface capabilities.

* Leverage networking to shorten the kill chain to the tactical edge by linking distributed forces to sensors and fires with the ability to rapidly provide precision fires and massed effects.

* Develop organizational and employment concepts for information warfare efforts to ensure the MAGTF has a cohesive, organic capability to employ effects across all five domains.

* Develop an organic air/UAS- and missile-defense capability.

* Organize, train, and equip all echelons to integrate information warfare as a combination of creative thinking and advanced technology.

* Provide expeditionary air and missile defense, to include counter-UAS.

* Integrate networks; Marine aviation should link sensors and shooters across the naval force, contributing speed and range to the combined arms capability of the MAGTF.

Conclusion

To fight and win the Nation’s battles in the future, we must innovate to meet the challenges of adaptive and innovative adversaries. To achieve this, we will leverage and exploit any and all military research labs, individual Marines, and commercial outlets. Ultimately our ability to successfully execute as a 21st century MAGTF greatly depends on the extent to which we accomplish the above points and:

* Integrate as a full partner with the Navy, special operations forces, and the joint force because Marines both contribute to and benefit from unique and complementary capabilities across the range of military operations and across all five domains.

* Master the implementation of 21st century combined arms as our means to conduct maneuver warfare across all domains because we will exploit every opportunity to gain an advantage.

* Design and protect our command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance networks as a multi-source information-sharing architecture that reliably serves disparate MAGTF elements because distributing actionable information keeps operations in chaotic environments from becoming chaotic operations.

* Configure the MAGTF to fight and win when it fluidly distributes and concentrates elements because maneuver warfare and combined arms create combat power at any scale.

* Enable small units to achieve greater effects because they can leverage the full combat power of the MAGTF and naval/joint forces.

* Overcome the enduring obstacles to leveraging and sustaining commercial off-the-shelf systems because affordable “70 percent” solutions now are better than outdated solutions 10 years from now.

The 21st century MAGTF is within our reach. Even as the Marine Corps defends the Nation abroad, the institution is driven to rapidly innovate to meet the challenges of the emerging operating environment. This comprehensive program, properly resourced and focused, underwrites the MAGTF’s contribution to the joint force and the Marine Corps’ role as our Nation’s expeditionary force ?n readiness.

by The Ellis Group

The Marine Corps Operating Concept calls for a 21st Century MAGTF [that] conducts maneuver warfare in the physical and cognitive dimensions of conflict… through a combined arms approach that embraces information warfare as indispensable for achieving complementary effects across five domains-air, land sea, space, and cyberspace.^

This is an end point: a Marine Corps that employs the means necessary to win on the modern battlefield. What the concept does not do ?s provide a roadmap. It is, in and of itself, a missiontype order. The Commandant has given the Marine Corps a mission and has left it up to Marines to devise how the mission will be achieved. Nowhere ?s this more obvious than when it comes to information warfare. While ?t may not be new, information warfare is newly important. Marine Corps forces must begin to reflect that new importance. To cross the gap between the goals of the MOC and the Marine Corps as it is today, the Marine Corps must adapt and innovate.

The Marine Corps prides itself on its ability to adapt and overcome, but it has not always been an innovative organization. New equipment, ideas, and tactics have usually been implemented in response to specific challenges. At times, however, the Marine Corps has truly innovated. The development of vertical envelopment and the use of helicopters ?s one example where the Corps developed and embraced true “leap ahead” ideas. The difference between adaptation and innovation ?s key. Adaptation ?s reactive. Innovation is proactive. To maintain its relevance and its fighting ability, the Marine Corps must do both.

Adapting to the Information Environment

Integrating information warfare into combined arms requires an organization to employ information-related capabilities, just as the GCE and the ACE employ ground- and air-related capabilities respectively. Adaptations in ground and air combat already occur because there is an overarching structure interested in improving those operations. Information warfare has lacked that overarching structure.

An adaption approach for information warfare ?s made possible by the creation of MEF information groups (MIGs). The creation of MIGs consolidates information warfare functions, capabilities, and personnel under a single organization at each MEF. While this will serve to provide better direction for those capabilities in stride, the concepts, doctrine, and tactics will need to be developed by those Marines involved as MIGs begin to function and operate. Adaptations will have to emerge over time as the MIGs identify best practices, authorities, and processes for the employment of their capabilities.

Simultaneously, Marines not assigned to the MIGs will have to adapt to the new organization. Whereas ground or air units used to work with specific information-related units, they will now be able to direct requests for support to the MIG. Thus tactics, techniques, and procedures across the entire MAGTF will have to adapt. Many commanders and staffs view information warfare as an afterthought or an add-on to more familiar and traditional means. To adapt effectively, information warfare will have to be truly integrated into planning and operations. Training and education in information warfare can address this issue.

Innovating for the Information Environment

The Marine Corps reconnaissance community has a long and storied history in the Marine Corps which continues today. However, it has become increasingly obvious that the nature of reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance will necessarily change due to proliferating unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, satellite imagery, and electromagnetic sensing capabilities. Marine recon units can no longer depend solely on visual means to ascertain enemy positions and actions. Simultaneously, the information revolution means that reconnaissance (gaining information about the operating environment) and counter-reconnaissance (denying information to the enemy) will become more important than ever before, and winning that competition is integral to Marine Corps operations.

Since there ?s already a pre-existing reconnaissance capacity, what is needed is an innovative concept to give new direction to that community. The Marine Corps is currently working on a new reconnaissance/counter-reconnaissance concept to do just that. While reconnaissance is not information warfare, information-related capabilities offer both threats and opportunities for recon units. A conceptual solution for integrating and exploiting those capabilities is needed to better support information warfare efforts and the MAGTF mission.

Once the concept ?s finalized and finished, reconnaissance Marines will have to devise the best and most efficient way to execute the concept on the battlefield. That will require adaptations triggered by the adoption of the new concept.

Institutional Innovation and Adaptation

As should be clear from the above example, innovation and adaptation, while different, are nevertheless interrelated. Indeed, the proactive development of a recon/counter-recon concept has an emergent, adaptive quality to it, as the effort grew out of communication between leaders in the recon community and the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab.

That this innovation did not occur according to a set process is a function of the fact that there is no set process. Various Marine Corps units in the Supporting Establishment perform various functions such as long-term (futures) planning, operational analysis, wargame analysis, exercise analysis, and experimentation, development, and procurement. These entities are organized along functional lines just as the Operating Forces are organized. Functional organization, however, is usually hierarchical, and hierarchical organizations are great at control. Its why our Operating Forces are organized along hierarchical lines. According to organizational theory, however, hierarchical organizations are bad at innovation. Innovative institutions are organized like networks. That’s why Silicon Valley companies are better at innovation than government ones. In order to drive innovation at the institutional level, the Marine Corps needs to release innovation from traditional hierarchical processes.

The Marine Corps War fighting Lab is already taking steps to drive innovation forward through the extensive use of wargaming and increased willingness to look farther afield for new ideas and capabilities. The Lab has set up a web-based innovation portal to harness ideas from across the Marine Corps and instituted the NCO Fellowship to ensure that the views of the enlisted Marines are heard. Last year, the Lab hosted an Advanced Naval Technology Exercise (ANTX) at Camp Pendleton to bring together commercial, industry, and military leaders to demonstrate cutting-edge technological solutions for amphibious and expeditionary operations. This year, the Lab will host another ANTX focused on urban warfare. These efforts are necessarily messy and chaotic, but it is through such different approaches that true innovation can be achieved. In this way, we apply the maneuver warfare philosophy of boldness and aggression to our innovation and adaptation processes just as we would on the battlefield.

Conclusion

While the Marine Corps has always been able to adapt and overcome, it has less often turned to true innovation to keep its cutting edge. Fortunately, its smaller size in comparison to other Services is actually a strength: both adaptation and innovation can occur faster given the smaller number of Marine Corps personnel.

Thus the Marine Corps has an opportunity, even as every military organization foreign and friendly is forced to adapt to the information environment, to seek true innovation to remain ahead of other organizations. As mentioned above, the Corps should not leave its traditions of adaptation behind; ?t has been and will continue to be a source of strength. However, as technological innovations and progress occur seemingly continuously-and even appear to be accelerating-?n the civilian sector, the Marine Corps will have to match its ability to adapt with an ability to innovate.

by Staffs, Lejeune Leadership Institute & Marine Corps History Division

In his 1989 letter to the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the CMC, Gen Alfred M. Gray, directed the rapid establishment of a Marine Corps University. Gen Gray outlined his intent “to teach military judgment rather than knowledge.”1 He foresaw that Marines in the 21st century would need to develop “a way of thinking in and about war that should shape our every action… [and] a state of mind born of a bold will, intellect, initiative, and ruthless opportunism.”2 Lifelong education for all Marines was Gen Gray’s vision. In this vein, this three-part case study analyzes a complex situation from an earlier time when military planners confronted what seemed an intractable problem: how to deal with yellow fever and malaria during construction of the Panama Canal.

French and American engineers learned that in order to complete construction of the Panama Canal, the devastating scourges of yellow fever and malaria would have to be reduced or outright eradicated. These tasks subsequently required great stores of leadership, intellect, moral courage, commitment, and perseverance as well as scientific and statistical analysis of complex data. The military leaders for this mission had to develop the capabilities to deliver and execute commanders’ intent; anticipate, ideology, and overcome obstacles; assess and shape the situation; analyze and leverage scientific and statistical data; and break a complex problem down into simple yet executable parts that could be understood and executed by subordinates. They also had to improvise and adapt. As the foundation of our maneuver warfare philosophy, MCDP I, Warfighting, explains, “providing intent ?s to allow subordinates to exercise judgment and initiative-to depart from the original plan when the unforeseen occurs-in a way that is consistent with higher commanders’ aim.”3 There’s much we can learn from this case.

Gen Gray’s vision for MCU was that “history should be used to teach officers [and NCOs] military judgment.”4 Accordingly, this case is not intended to make you and your Marines experts on yellow fever, malaria, or construction of the Panama Canal, although these subjects are certainly interesting. Rather, as you delve into the details of this fascinating story, consider some of our Corps’ modern “scourges” and how you, as a leader of Marines, will deal with them. Can we develop and execute a campaign plan? How will we break it down into simple parts and supervise it? How will we aggressively assess its effectiveness? Applying the tenets of maneuver warfare to solving complex problems is what the American people expect from their Marines to get better. The story of the eradication of yellow fever can help us do so.

> Editor’s Note: The three-part case study is available at https:Hwww.usmcu.edu/lli/ marine-leader-development/discussion-topics.

by Staff, Training Command

We need every Marine and Sailor to seek creative solutions to today’s and tomorrow’s complex problems. We need your ideas and your critical thinking. We need to change where it makes sense; adapt as quickly as possible, and constantly innovate to stay ahead of our adversaries.

-The Marine Corps Operating Concept1

Training Command touches the entire Marine Corps, both officer and enlisted. Its 19 major subordinate elements (see Figure 1 below) commanded by Marine colonels and Navy captains, and 90 formal learning centers (see Figure 2 on next page) responsible for 618 POI (programs of instruction), provide numerous touchpoints to instill the values, knowledge, and skills required of Marines and Sailors to tackle the complex problems the Commandant addresses in the MOC (Marine Corps Operating Concept). Training Command’s mission is to consistently produce officer and enlisted entry-level MOS, career progression, and career enhancement skills trained Marines and Sailors to meet force generation requirements. The command’s over 6,000 permanent personnel achieve this by training over 102,000 Marines and Sailors every year. As such, Training Command is in a unique position to influence the culture and future of the Corps. It is a mechanism for change.

Training Requirements

Training Command does not unilaterally determine the subject matter and capabilities in which it trains Marines and Sailors. The command develops its programs of instruction from the strategic guidance found in the MOC and the Commandant’s FRAGOs 1 and 2.2 It receives further operational guidance from the Marine Corps Combat Development Command/Combat Development & Integration Force Development’s, and Training and Education Command’s strategic plans. These documents provide broad guidelines on the topics that must be covered, but the manner in which the knowledge and skills are taught is determined by Training Command.

Additional input on generating talent for the Marine Corps is provided by Training Command’s customers and occupational field advocates. The Operating Forces and Supporting Establishment are Training Command’s primary customers. Their tactical requirements are derived from their missions, operational experiences, exercises, and experiments, all of which inform the development of the classes and skills taught at Training Command school houses. The occupation field sponsors, advocates, and proponents further provide Service-level input into production standards, quantity, and timing. Train- ing Command translates this guidance into force generation plans that sustain the transformation of entry-level and career Marines and Sailors (see Figure 3 below).

Mechanism for Change

Training Command’s diverse portfolio and wide span of control enable it to impact change in many different ways. The command constantly seeks improvement in its instructors, subject matter, training methodologies, and efficiencies in training the best force available within resource constraints. It is currently pursuing a number of initiatives to “gain inches” in improving the Marine Corps. The following three examples provide a small sampling of its efforts.

MCT (Marine Combat Training) Enhancement

Commanding the SOIs (Schools of Infantry) allows Training Command to reinforce the Marine Corps’ warfighting ethos while better developing basic riflemen. It intends to do this by adjusting the existing MCT (Marine Combat Training) POI to reinforce five themes: core values, leadership development, basic tenets of maneuver warfare, resiliency, and fitness. The SOIs will build on the core values learned by all enlisted Marines at recruit training to garner further inclusiveness and understanding of the contribution of all Marines to assist in the cultural change the Commandant seeks. The lock-step approach to training currently conducted by the SOIs during MCT will be replaced with a progressive tactical scenario in which students are organized into fireteams and squads with every Marine serving a minimum of one week as a fireteam leader under the coaching and mentoring of their 0913 combat instructors. The SOIs will introduce MCT Marines to the basic tenets of maneuver warfare at the junior Marine level. They will gain an understanding and appreciation of how their application of these tenets will assist their units in succeeding on the fluid battlefields of the 21st century. Although the Operating Forces train their Marines and Sailors to withstand the rigors of combat, the SOIs will train Marines in the coping skills necessary to overcome the stressors of life to improve unit readiness and assist Marines in successfully completing their terms of enlistment. The SOIs will also leverage the Marine Corps’ new physical fitness program and force fitness instructors to improve the overall fitness of their Marines while instilling the personal ownership of one’s fitness into every Marine. These MCT enhancements are expected to be implemented in fall 2017. Training Command intends to reinforce these five themes at its MOS producing schools as part of the transformation process and training continuum.

Force 2025: 06XX Communications FMP (Force Modernization Plan)

Understanding the need to adjust capabilities to compete on the modern battlefield, Training Commands MCCES (Marine Corps Communications-Electronics School) in Twentynine Palms developed a FMP (force modernization plan) under the cognizance of Marine Corps C4I (command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence). The MCCES reorganized legacy stove-piped communications fields into mu.jpgaceted network capabilities. This transformational change makes every 06XX Marine a “networked Marine,” professionalizes the 06XX force, and strengthens the Marine Corps’ overall cyber security. The FMP supports the generation of Force 2025 and consist of four paths: 062X-Transmissions, ОбЗХ-Network, 067X-Data Systems, and 068X-Cyber Security. Training Command, MCCES, C4I, and Marine Forces Cyberspace Command are also working together to develop a future 17XX Cyber Marine training program. Full implementation of the FMP is scheduled for spring 2018.

MAT (Marines Awaiting Training) Enhancement Program/Modernizing the Classroom

Training Command is leveraging technology and new training methodologies to enhance learning and achieve greater efficiencies. It is experimenting with and employing government and commercial off-the-shelf applications, WiFi, learning management systems, elearning systems, bring-your-own device technologies, simulations, and other tools to facilitate individually paced learning, provide more repetitions and sets, and assist Marines in more rapidly mastering skills. This will translate to reducing T2P2 (transfers, transients, patients, and prisoners) across the Corps, more rapidly getting Marines to the Operating Forces, keeping leaders in front of their units longer, and increasing overall unit readiness. The applications and opportunities offered by technology are endless, but they do require investment.

Investing in the Future

Training Command optimizes finite resources to support a complex and dynamic training continuum. It partners with many advocates and stakeholders to generate the individual talent that comprise successful units. It accomplishes this by investing in the quality and quantity of its professional instructor core-its center of gravity. Continued investment in the 0911 drill instructors needed at Officer Candidates School, 0913 combat instructors needed to train officers at TBS and enlisted Marines at the SOIs, and numerous other quality instructors across all occupational fields needed at Training Command’s many other schools will ensure its sustained ability to be a mechanism of change for the Marine Corps. The investment in sending the right number and quality of Marines and Sailors to be instructors at the school houses will pay dividends on their return to the Operating Forces. The increased knowledge, skills, and expertise they gained as instructors will manifest itself in the new leadership roles they fill in the Operating Forces.

The Partnership

Training Command is committed to implementing the changes needed to better develop and field the Marines and Sailors who will operationalize the MOC and sustain the Marine Corps’ success in the 21st century. However, it cannot do this alone. It will only accomplish this through a close partnership with and shared visions and support of the occupational field advocates, sponsors, and customers. Together we will generate and train an unbeatable force.

by Capt Timothy H Courchaine & 1stLt L. Glinzak

As Henry V surveyed the battlefield at Agincourt, he saw a sight he surely did not want to. Arrayed in front of him was the flower of the French King’s army, armor-clad knights and men at arms, thousands of whom had marched across Normandy and France and successfully cornered him here on a muddy, narrow field. He knew that his men were exhausted from campaigning, half starved, and most had unpleasant cases of dysentery, making their assembly area aromatic. He also knew, to a certain degree, the weapons capabilities of each side and the terrain he was fighting on. He could see across the field to the opposing commander’s standard and watch his enemy’s messengers move Irom battle to battle,1 relaying orders and observations. This picture paints an image of a commander who in reality had far more information, or at least felt that he had far more information, than what most commanders would feel today.2

Information saturation and the quest for information by commanders and the Marine Corps at large is a by-product of the proliferation of information-producing sources available to commanders in the field today. While these sources can be a critical asset, their overuse leads to two distinct drawbacks. First, the sheer volume of information one must process and the source management associated with its collection shifts the focus of the planning phase almost exclusively to an analytical approach. While thorough, it degrades a commander’s ability to make snap decisions when there are several hundred things that need to be considered. Secondly, by seeking to possess all of the potential information up front, a commander is centralizing decision making, a concept which flies in the face of the Marine Corps’ doctrine of decentralization. The quest of a commander in seeking information therefore should not be in collecting as much as possible but rather revolve around the question of what few, critical pieces of information their assumptions rely on. Similar to the priorities of reconnaissance, this question focuses data collection while narrowing the input necessary for a decision.

Just as warfare eventually caught up with the Industrial Revolution during World War I, the modern battlefield is increasingly influenced and dominated by the current Information Revolution. Computers and networks are now a necessary and common tool. ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) assets can be found on a wide range of platforms and the information they can now provide is staggering. Communications have increased in range and reliability, allowing a commander potentially hundreds of miles away to receive information reports in realtime.

The information these assets provide can be absolutely critical to making the right decision and plan. When unfocused, however, they provide a sensory overload. Sifting through these sources can become the job, and while intelligence shops producing significant analysis are powerful tools, they are one rarely available to the lower-level commanders trying to make a decision with this exhaustive inflow of information.

This overload is not merely a passive one. Military planners recognize that these assets are available and want to make use of them. With increasing spotlights on the strategic implications of small unit decisions and a zero defect culture, it is a way of insuring a commanders decisions are not seen as negligent, and that commanders did their due diligence if something goes wrong. The drive for that clear picture of the battlefield is a commander’s safety blanket. When he knows exactly what he is up against, he knows what he will receive. This feeling of intellectual comfort in decision making leads to an overreliance on an analytical decisionmaking processes. With this increased reliance, commanders are less and less likely to be comfortable with the snap judgment necessary for quick and intuitive decisions that must be made during information deficits.

Maneuver warfare is the bedrock of Marine Corps tactics. Out-cycling the enemy, moving faster, adapting, anticipating the enemy’s next move, achieving a decision, and then exploiting success have all led to the triumph of maneuver warfare. Maneuver warfare has been embraced doctrinally and contributed to the success of countless engagements. In order for maneuver warfare to continue to be successful, however, we must stay rooted in its tactical fundamentals and, even more importantly, not let today’s thirst for information interfere with our ability to quickly achieve a decision and adapt to an ever-changing battlefield and thinking enemy.

One of the tactical fundamentals in the Marine Corps is achieving a decision.5 Decisions must be made quicker than our enemy-a 70 percent solution now is better than a 100 percent solution that comes too late. Unfortunately, when Marines wait for technology to answer ever}7 question, our desire for more information before we make a decision hinders our ability to achieve a decision before the enemy. Technology is a powerful asset that can be used to achieve a decision, but it should not be the driving force.

Part of achieving the decision to act before the enemy relies on a commander’s military judgement, which is hampered the longer they wait for information. Military judgment requires a leader to conduct a thorough METT-T (mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available-time) analysis, including looking at things from the enemy’s perspective in order to figure out the enemy’s most likely course of action.4 This allows a leader to analyze the situation and develop ideas. Such thorough analysis does not come only from technologically-provided information. Instead, it often comes from experience and the ability to use intuitive decision making.5 Instead of being over reliant on technology to paint a “perfect picture” of the enemy situation and the operating area, leaders should rely on their experience and intuitive decision-making skills to conduct a thorough analysis of that ever changing enemy and operating area. Leaders must be encouraged to use their skill sets to achieve a quick decision that may not be perfect but is more than capable of accomplishing the mission rather than a perfect solution that may come too late.

In addition to slowing down the decision-making process, the quest for information can harm our ability to adapt. MCDP 1-3 discusses how adapting means having flexible plans that avoid unnecessary detail, can be easily changed, and are simple.6 During the quest for information, leaders must ensure it does not over-complicate our plans and provide mundane details that, in the end, inhibit our ability to quickly change and adapt to a thinking, ever-changing enemy. Information can be an asset in developing critical aspects of plans, but it will never deliver a “perfect plan.” Such a plan will slow Marines down and prevent them from adapting. Instead, leaders should use the information gained to aid their METT-T analysis so that they can act as critical thinkers, ones who anticipate the enemy’s next move and are willing to improvise when a curve ball is thrown.

What commanders must realize is that as the battlespace continues to increase, so too will the information deficit inherent in command. The op posing will of the enemy is now spread across a wide front and is no longer visible in one look across the field. In order to combat this, the focus of information gathering must be laser like and identify only the decisive points of the decision-making process. In recreating the picture the ancient commander saw atop his horse, he saw a myriad of data points: the color or each banner, their jovial demeanor, and the flowers in the field. For a modern commander, however, which one is important? It will take too long and be too laborious to completely recreate the scene. At least two separate information sources could be required in such a scenario: image surveillance to show the banners and the flowers and human intelligence sources to reveal their demeanor. The prioritization of information is what will give the modern commander the equivalent decision-making power.

The Marine Corps preaches a doctrine of decentralization, one which should allow commanders to operate in this informational deficit because each or their subordinate leaders will have a closer view of the conditions in front of him. Essentially, they will have the view he is attempting to develop with all of the various information assets he is employing. “Mission tactics” is more than a task and a purpose statement given in case a situation does not develop according to plan-it is also a tool to make coherent and informed decisions effecting pivotal swings in battle when the commander is nowhere near, is unavailable, and quite possibly innocently uninformed as to the fact that his unit is even in contact.

As commanders seek information, the first place they often go is to their subordinates. This will either be with a task to go find information or a request to relay information back up to the commander. Tasked with gathering information, the subordinate leader is now diverted from making decisions in an area he is already adequately informed about for his own purposes to gathering, processing, and then relaying up to higher information that may or may not be critical. The over reliance on this dynamic creates a middleman in information development that results in both inefficiency and centralization in a removed leader.

Decentralization encourages bold, decisive leaders. Military judgment must be developed in our leaders so that they can quickly adapt and achieve a decision faster than the enemy. Technology is an asset that can aid in our success and decision making. It should not be relied on, however, to bring us to a “perfect plan” or to paint the “perfect picture.” Leaders must have confidence in their analytical and intuitive skills and be critical-thinking leaders. Such an environment should be rostered and encouraged within subordinates. Technology and information is a tremendous asset, but it is not as crucial as a critically-thinking leader who is able to take the information he is given-even if it is not all of the desired information-and use analytical skills to anticipate the enemy’s most likely course of action. This allows Marines to keep a quick tempo, one that is faster than the enemy and, in the end, is a foundation of maneuver warfare.

by LtCol Gregory A. Thiele

In the last 30 years, the Marine Corps has tied its warfighting capability ever more closely to the use of computers and the Internet. This development has had some benefits. Unfortunately, it has also created tremendous vulnerabilities potential adversaries may be able to exploit. While no communications system is ever entirely secure, the Internet and other computer-based information sharing systems have proven extremely vulnerable. The Marine Corps should reconsider its use of internet-based technology and employ it only in a carefully targeted manner compatible with the Marine Corps’ warfighting philosophy oí maneuver warfare.

The Marine Corps now uses computers and the Internet for nearly everything, both in garrison and in wartime. It seems that virtually every Marine has a computer, Internet connection, and email address. Everything from personnel records to maintenance records, annual training statistics to annual training classes are delivered and shared via the Internet and tracked, cataloged, and stored on computers and servers. When servers crash or the Internet fails for any reason, workflow virtually stops in affected units. Units now drag computers, servers, heating and cooling systems, and associated generators to the field in order to establish Internet connections with other units. The light, foot-mobile headquarters seems to be a thing of the past.

The Marine Corps’ use of computers and Internet-based information sharing systems for both garrison and wartime use has some beneficial aspects. A greater amount of information can be shared more rapidly among more Marines than ever before. Tasks that used to take a great deal of time or manpower can now be automated and conducted cheaply, quickly, and efficiently.

Unfortunately, the Internet’s benefits have not come without significant drawbacks. Our fascination with technology may actually be detrimental and make Marine units less capable. Commanders are now inundated with information. The increased information requires a corresponding increase in staff to process it. More staff officers mean that there are more individuals vying for a commander’s time. The plethora of information available is likely to result in a commander experiencing information overload, which may inhibit effective decision making.

Information sharing technology may also degrade unit performance in less obvious ways. The Internet provides higher headquarters with the means to monitor virtually any aspect of a subordinate’s actions it chooses. Nothing can escape the all-seeing electronic eye of Big Brother. To augment this electronic supervision, units are required, to send so many reports to higher headquarters each day/week/month/year that this effort can easily become a unit’s focus of effort in garrison. Higher headquarters’ appetite for information only increases during wartime with a corresponding potential negative impact on unit focus and initiative.

Perhaps the greatest drawback that comes with wedding warfighting capability to information sharing technology is that every network is vulnerable. In fact, it is quite impossible to create a network that is impervious to attack.1 Despite the financial resources of the United States and the extensive efforts made to protect important data, U.S. government files are routinely compromised. For instance, in 2015, it was revealed that the Office of Personnel Management’s files were hacked and the information of at least four million federal service employees may have been compromised. Even the U. S. Secretary of State at that time, John Kerry, once admitted that it was “very possible” that his email account had been compromised “and I certainly write things with that awareness.”2 Although Secretary Kerry’s actions may be no more than prudence, if the U.S. Secretary of State cannot be certain that his email is secure, what does this say about the ability (or inability) to provide secure communications in other areas, particularly where the scale of use is much greater (such as the Department of Defense)?

In such an environment, what may actually be required is for the Marine Corps to chart an entirely contrary course when it comes to information technology. The most secure option is for the Marine Corps not to use Internet-based technology at all. Given current trends and ever-greater desires for data communication, this is likely an unpalatable option. If the Corps is to continue to rely on information technology, it should be far more selective than is currently the case in how and when such technologies are employed. Marines ought to employ technology in a manner that contributes to the Marine Corps’ warfighting capacity while presenting or creating a minimum of vulnerabilities that can be exploited by a potential threat.

The Marine Corps must place technology in its proper relation to war and to the Marine Corps’ warfighting philosophy. The best guide possible for the employment of technology is that provided by the United States’ greatest military theorist, U.S. Air Force Col John Boyd. Boyd used to say, “People, ideas, hardware-in that order.”3 Marines seem to have forgotten this lesson, if indeed they had ever truly learned it. The Marine Corps should work tirelessly to find the best people available (and then work even harder to incentivize them to remain in the Corps).4 These Marines can then develop concepts suitable for modern war and consistent with the Marine Corps’ maneuver warfare doctrine. This group must then identify the equipment required to put the new concepts into practice so that it can be purchased or, if necessary, developed.

The preceding description probably sounds fairly logical, so it may be surprising that the Marine Corps rarely seems to follow this model in determining what equipment to buy. The MV22 Osprey, for example, is a testament to the Marine Corps’ tendency to fall in love with and buy technologically complex equipment and develop a concept of employment later.3 The same is true of the F-35 and Expeditionary Force 21. In each case, because no clear requirement existed for these aircraft, the Marine Corps created a concept and attempted to tie the equipment to the concept after the fact-however tenuous the links.

Marines need to employ technology in a targeted fashion. Each potential purchase needs to undergo a rigorous review process in which several important questions are asked: How will this piece of equipment fit with Marine Corps’ maneuver warfare doctrine? Is the equipment compatible with a decentralized philosophy of command and control (C2)? How will this piece of equipment actually be used in both peace and war-how does it fit into the way in which Marines will fight in anticipated future conflicts? Some may argue that these questions are already asked and exhaustively studied, but such a claim would seem to have little merit, as the preceding examples indicated. If equipment is incompatible with the Marine Corps’ warfighting philosophy or its C2 philosophy, the Marine Corps should not purchase it.

Breaking the Marine Corps’ addiction to technology will help Marines make better procurement decisions and permit the Corps to focus scarce resources on securing the technologies acquired. In the end, however, Marines must accept and embrace the nature of war described in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1 (MCDP1). Among other attributes, war is chaotic, violent, and a clash of hostile, irreconcilable wills, each seeking to impose itself on its opponent. The enemy will seek to compromise our use of the electromagnetic spectrum or turn our use to their advantage.

Networks that rely on the electromagnetic spectrum can be compromised in numerous ways. The codes they use to keep information secure can be broken.6 Signal transmission can provide the location of the emitter inviting physical attack or targeted disruption. Servers can be attacked with malicious code or distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. Such attacks do not require an enemy with the same level of technology and resources as the United States; such capabilities are becoming increasingly available to Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) adversaries.

Marines must prepare for a battlefield where the enemy seeks, and is able to interrupt or compromise any use of, the electromagnetic spectrum. Ever more complex and costly defenses are unlikely to be able to keep pace with the threat. The best security against disruption of the electromagnetic spectrum is to use it as little as necessary.

There is, perhaps, a simple answer to this dilemma. We should prepare Marines to rely on the oldest network in existence: the network that exists between individual human beings. Col Boyd used to say that, “Machines don’t fight wars, people do, and they use their minds.”7 Fluman networks consist of relationships between individuals. These connections can be extremely difficult to disrupt, can be surprisingly resistant to major shocks, and at their best can often be broken only through physical destruction. The resilience of human networks is maximized when paired with a decentralized C2 philosophy that allows individuals the autonomy to make decisions in an atmosphere of trust.

Unfortunately, one cannot simply buy an improved human network; connections between people must be built over time. Once forged, however, a unit utilizing decentralized C2 can function much more rapidly and effectively than a highly centralized network. A decentralized, less rigidly hierarchical organization that trusts its people will be more effective in combat-with or without the aid of the electromagnetic spectrum.

If the Marine Corps is to succeed in the future, Marines must take a more thoughtful approach to the acquisition of technology. The role of technology is to serve Marines, not enslave them or overmaster them. Over reliance on technology can be dangerous and can have devastating consequences. This is particularly true in the realm of Internet-based information-sharing technologies. The best method to safeguard information in a digital world is not to use computers or the Internet at all. Since it is unlikely that the Marine Corps will turn away from informationsharing technologies entirely, the best option remaining is to limit the use of such technologies and to target their use carefully. Such an approach will help reduce potential vulnerabilities and allow the Marine Corps to focus limited resources on securing the systems it procures. In the end, though, it is people that matter. The most powerful information-sharing network that can be created is among people, and so long as war is waged by human beings, it will remain so, no matter how technology changes.