Three Steps To Revive Marine Corps Readiness

Ever wonder what it takes to keep a military branch like the Marine Corps sharp, versatile, and ready for anything? I recently had a thought-provoking chat with a former colleague, now a contractor deeply embedded in the Corps’ latest strategic overhaul. The topic? The controversial Force Design initiative, a plan that’s sparked heated debates among active and retired Marines alike. It’s a polarizing shift, and after years of watching it unfold, I’ve got some ideas on how to steer the Corps back to its roots as a global force in readiness—without losing sight of modern challenges.

A Roadmap to Rebuild the Marine Corps

The Marine Corps has always been about adaptability, but recent changes have left many questioning its direction. Force Design, launched to counter specific global threats, has reshaped the Corps into a leaner, more specialized force. Critics, including myself, argue it’s too narrowly focused, potentially undermining the Corps’ ability to respond to diverse global crises. So, how do we fix it? Here’s a three-step plan to restore balance, test new ideas, and ensure the Corps remains a powerhouse for decades to come.

Step 1: Test Force Design in the Real World

Let’s start with the elephant in the room: Force Design hasn’t been properly tested. The core idea involves small, agile units—called Stand-in-Forces—operating from remote islets, launching missiles at enemy ships, and quickly relocating to avoid counterattacks. It’s a bold concept, but is it practical? Many, including retired Marine leaders, doubt these units can move fast enough to evade advanced detection systems.

Theory is one thing, but war doesn’t care about PowerPoint slides. Real-world tests are the only way to know what works.

– Retired Marine officer

Here’s the plan: designate the single existing Stand-in-Force in the Philippines as an experimental unit. Conduct rigorous field exercises, pitting it against a U.S. Navy team simulating an opposing force. Use Army vessels to stand in for the Navy’s yet-to-be-built Medium Landing Ships. Let the Indo-Pacific Command oversee and judge the results. If the concept holds up, great—we’ve got a winner. If not, we scrap it before it drains more resources.

• Test mobility: Can these units relocate quickly enough to avoid detection?
• Assess logistics: Are the missiles and equipment truly portable in real-world conditions?
• Evaluate survivability: Can they withstand a simulated enemy counterattack?

In my view, this step is non-negotiable. Without testing, we’re gambling with the Corps’ future. A single failure in a real conflict could cost lives and credibility.

Step 2: Rebuild Core Capabilities

If Force Design falters, the next commandant will need options. Right now, the Corps has shed critical assets like tanks and heavy engineering units to fund specialized equipment. That’s like trading your toolbox for a single wrench—versatility takes a hit. To fix this, we need to rebuild expertise in these areas, starting small but smart.

Create two experimental units: one focused on tanks and another on heavy engineering, including assault bridging. These don’t need to be massive—just enough to preserve knowledge and skills. The Army’s already exploring lighter, more mobile tanks and engineering tools, which could be adapted for Marine use. This gives future leaders a foundation to scale up if needed.

Why does this matter? Because a Marine Corps without tanks or engineers is like a chef without a knife—still functional, but limited. These units would ensure the Corps can pivot back to a balanced force if the current strategy flops.

Step 3: Secure Naval Support

The Marine Corps doesn’t operate alone—it relies on the Navy for transport and support. Yet, the Navy’s commitment to maintaining a robust amphibious fleet has wavered. The promise of keeping three Marine Expeditionary Units afloat 24/7? It’s fallen flat. To fix this, leadership must push for a firm Navy commitment to a 38-ship amphibious fleet.

Without ships, Marines are just soldiers with better uniforms.

– Defense analyst

This isn’t just about numbers—it’s about ensuring the Corps can deploy globally, not just in one region. A smaller fleet limits response options, tying Marines to specific theaters and reducing their flexibility. Insisting on this commitment would signal that the Corps values its role as a global crisis-response force.

1. Negotiate with the Navy: Secure a clear, public commitment to the 38-ship goal.
2. Monitor progress: Hold the Navy accountable through joint oversight.
3. Plan contingencies: Develop fallback options if naval support falls short.

Perhaps the most frustrating part is how past leaders let this slide. It’s like trusting a friend to drive you to the airport, only to find out they sold the car. A strong amphibious fleet is non-negotiable for a Corps that prides itself on readiness.

Why This Matters Now

The Marine Corps is at a crossroads. Force Design has divided its ranks, with critics arguing it’s too focused on one potential adversary at the expense of global readiness. The stakes are high—missteps could weaken the Corps for decades. These three steps—testing the current strategy, rebuilding lost capabilities, and securing naval support—offer a path to balance innovation with tradition.

I’ve always admired the Corps’ ability to adapt, but adaptation doesn’t mean abandoning what works. By taking these steps, leadership can quiet the skeptics (like me) and give future commandants the tools to shape a versatile, resilient force. What do you think—can the Corps pull this off, or are we stuck in a strategic rut?

Marine Corps Readiness Model:
  50% Global Flexibility
  30% Specialized Capabilities
  20% Naval Integration

The beauty of this approach is its pragmatism. It doesn’t demand a complete overhaul—just a willingness to test, adapt, and rebuild. If leadership embraces these steps, they might just silence the critics and set the Corps up for success in an unpredictable world.

Challenges and Pushback

Let’s be real: these ideas won’t go down easy. The current leadership is heavily invested in Force Design, and suggesting changes might feel like a personal attack. Plus, the Navy’s budget constraints make a 38-ship fleet a tough sell. But here’s the thing—ignoring the critics risks alienating the very Marines who make the Corps what it is.

In my experience, the best leaders listen to dissent, not because they agree, but because it sharpens their decisions. Conducting real-world tests, preserving core capabilities, and securing naval support aren’t radical ideas—they’re common sense. The Corps has a proud history of overcoming challenges, and this is just another one to tackle.

Marines don’t win by playing it safe—they win by being bold and smart.

The road ahead won’t be smooth, but it’s worth it. A Marine Corps that can’t adapt risks losing its edge, and that’s a loss we can’t afford.

Looking to the Future

Imagine a Marine Corps that’s ready for anything—whether it’s a crisis in the Pacific, a conflict in Europe, or a disaster response halfway across the globe. That’s the vision behind these three steps. By testing Force Design, rebuilding key capabilities, and locking in naval support, the Corps can reclaim its role as the world’s premier crisis-response force.

I’ll be honest: I’m skeptical of the current path, but I’m open to being proven wrong. What I’m not open to is watching the Corps lose its edge because of untested assumptions or misplaced priorities. These steps are a lifeline—a way to honor the past while building for the future. Will leadership take the leap? Only time will tell.

For now, the debate rages on. But one thing’s clear: the Marine Corps is too vital to get this wrong. Let’s hope the next steps are bold, smart, and worthy of the Marines who serve.