Marines Plan to Cut Thousands of Personnel, Cull Fleets of MRAPs and AAVs

That's not good news to hear.

Budgets v Congress
There is what the Corps wants and what Congress wants

Having been the subject of an IRAD once...I have some pretty strong opinions. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong...but I'm going to say what I feel-hopefully coherently.

Let's start with the obvious- change isn't always positive. Some problems are endemic, some are transient, and some are just part of the cost of doing business. You don't keep a ship on a straight heading by constantly shifting the rudder; you make small corrections over time that result in a more consistent track. After all of these years, we should have some mathematical idea of what we need when things are at their "worst"...and maintain that when things are at their "best" so that with each crisis, we eliminate the "growing pains" of developing a service.

Next, there's the latent appearance of disregard for the 2,400 or so Marines about to lose not only a job, but what for many may be their identity. I "get" that the American taxpayer isn't being asked to support the "hopes and dreams" of our service members (though it seems we are asked to do so for others often). I also understand that there are people who probably "don't belong"...but I'm incapable of believing that number equates to more than 2,000 members, and not blaming the institution more than the individuals. More to the point, after more than a decade of working in the civil sector...I'm convinced that there are VERY stark differences between being forced to change jobs within a consistent career track...and being forced to abandon a career altogether for which one has sacrificed much.

Finally, there's the way in which these decisions always "appear" to be masking the whole truth. So we have to cut numbers; Ok- where's the math that equates to "Lance Corporal Smith", or "Captain Jones" having to re-calculate their lives vs. "Sergent Major Brown", or "Colonel Grey"? Who is the greater loss; a senior person eligible for retirement, or a mid-to-junior level person just beginning to "bake"? Are we sure this isn't about avoiding all those promised benefits for a larger group? Think it's all about performance? Why then are these changes not affecting the Reserves? Have any doubts that many of these rifted personnel will then affiliate by choice or mandate? What happens five years out when we need more personnel, and tap the reserve elements to fill the gap? Think about that a minute, and explain to me in all sincerity how this isn't about playing shell games?

In summary, I know hard decisions have to be made, but this sounds like a combination of "knee jerk" decisions, people at the top justifying their pet projects (if not their own careers), and a failure to recognize the most important weapon system as the service member...not the latest geegaw sold by the IMC at the request of General "X", and for the political benefit of Congressman "Y".