3 hard questions for the Marines to chew

Yesterday I was
reading a paper on the future of the Marine Corps that bothered me because I
thought it didn't ask tough enough questions. So I asked myself, What would
those questions be?

This is what I wrote
down:

Right now the Marine Corps is too attached to
measuring itself by its end strength. That is an Army approach, and a bad idea
for the Corps. I think its competitive advantage is in its quality. That should
be its position to defend, not size. Is it possible to change this emphasis?
How?




Over the last two decades, the Marine Corps
spent billions of dollars on the V-22 and F-35. Sure, they might be effective.
But are they worth it for the Marines? Is one of the lessons of the last 20
years that the Marines should not be in the business of technological
innovation?  (And what do the Marines
really need the F-35 for? Wouldn't an F-4 or a prop-driven plane be better for close
air support?)




If, as I suspect, the Marine Corps' real
future role is to be the 911 force, why not adapt to that even more? Yes,
develop a well-trained force led by adaptive officers and overseen by generals
who speak truth to power. But take it another step: Make the Marines the
military's premier "interagency" force, not only willing to take orders from
the State Department or CIA, but thoroughly trained and prepared to do so. Lead
the way in such exercises. Build on the foundation of Small Wars Manual to write
counterinsurgency doctrine that actually takes politics into account.