Interesting Editorial sort of defending the the re-design on T&P (I've stayed away from that place probably for over a year on purpose). But the author ends with a really stupid paragraph since the Army has definitely fought and won land wars in Asia quite well. Not really sure of the purpose of that other than to be a chode.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps is charging into the future, but some aren't ready for change
Although
@Teufel I'm not sure of the whole idea of rocket artillery (Since rocket artillery tends to be heavy formations) for that purpose but I wasn't paid to think for that. But doesn't that idea exist already in an ad-hoc MEU structure generally?
Former SEN and SECNAV James Webb wrote an editorial critiquing the re-design.
The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps
Just as I critiqued the Armor branch in every survey that was pushed down the Chief of Armor for failing to adequately train Cavalry Scouts or Tankers with them showing up underskilled and out of shape. I can definitely critique the Commandant for effectively stifling the pipeline to effectively staff Marine Infantry Regiments if the intent is to just jam another 6 months of training on top. What would the Marine or Soldier actually learn extra during that period of time that they couldn't learn through a work up. In order to meet through put to effectively staff units your recruiting numbers would have to jump significantly.
I suppose the question of Tanks being OPCONd to a MEU has been answered in Webb's Critique, I haven't really heard in the Armor community much talk of attaching units to MEUs. Seriously this would be a huge thing in that community as it would be a massive doctrinal shift and addition to the METL tasks that would need to trained at Battalion level.
I'm not saying the idea of a Commando Regiment is a bad thing, heck I had sort of thought that was the whole point of bringing back Raider battalions originally, but the Raider mission is completely different role and seems to sit in some quasi Army SF like role.