tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4966137250353010874..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Amphibious Assault - Reinventing the WheelComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71210122606821283592012-11-10T18:19:16.384-08:002012-11-10T18:19:16.384-08:00You can disagree with my assessment of Navy/Marine...You can disagree with my assessment of Navy/Marine leadership but the fact is that the main capability of the Marines, forced entry amphibious landings, was allowed to atrophy badly over the last couple decades. That's not my opinion - that's statements from Marine leadership themselves. That I interpret the cause of that to be a leadership failure IS an opinion on my part (the analysis part of the blog). It's certainly a debatable conclusion but not an unreasonable one. <br /><br />I presented and analyzed the facts - exactly what the stated purpose of this blog is. The fact that you disagree with me is fine, however, it does not negate my analysis.<br /><br />If you have an open mind on the subject of leadership, consider the overall pattern of Navy acquisition problems, the minimal manning debacle, the deplorable maintenance situation, the near abandonment of mine and mine countermeasures capability, and all of the other things I've pointed out in previous posts. These constitute a pattern of systematic leadership failure, in my opinion. As I said, if considered with an open mind, the pattern has to at least give one pause. Again, you may disagree with my read of the situation but it's a reasonable and logical conclusion.<br /><br />Thanks for checking in!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6929240161465152002012-11-08T08:36:25.464-08:002012-11-08T08:36:25.464-08:00"This blog presents a serious and thoughtful ..."This blog presents a serious and thoughtful analysis of U.S. Navy matters and is intended to raise the level of discourse available on the Internet. It is based on fact and logic."<br /><br />The Marine Corps has been doing exactly what the nation required of it for the last decade plus. While they supported OIF and OEF, they continued to conduct crisis-response from the sea, amphibious operations, in literally hundreds of places. The Marines are not going back to sea, they never left.<br /><br />What the naval force has not practiced, of late, is projecting naval power ashore at a scale larger than small-scale crisis response. The forces to do so were training for OIF/OEF. That's what BA was about. <br /><br />The populist diatribe about leadership failure seems exactly counter to the stated purpose of this blog. Especially when the Marine leadership appears to have done a good job balancing core capabilities with emergent national requirements. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2354635043928665732012-11-08T02:39:51.548-08:002012-11-08T02:39:51.548-08:00Maybe the solution is not to have a specialist Amp...Maybe the solution is not to have a specialist Amphibious landing force at all. Keep the expertise for helicopter and small boat operation in the Navy, then just rotate Army units through as the boots on the ground (beach?)?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.com