In his newly released Commandant’s Planning Guidance, Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith reiterated the service’s commitment to the future-looking Force Design initiative, including a pledge to “make all necessary investments” to maintain the service’s amphibious ships and their associated forces despite facing “finite” resources.
“I remain confident that we are on the right track as a service. Force Design remains a righteous journey, and we are in perhaps the most difficult phase — implementation,” Smith stated in the document published today.
“Accepting near-term risk for long-term gain has, and always will be, the essence of Force Design,” Smith elaborated later in the guidance, emphasizing the need to balance funding between future modernization and current operational requirements. The Commandant’s Planning Guidance serves as a broad, forward-looking document designed to allow the service chief to address the entire Marine Corps and outline their vision and priorities.
Historically, this guidance is released soon after a new commandant assumes leadership. However, Smith’s CPG faced delays due to a political impasse on Capitol Hill, as he was not permitted to publish it while serving as the acting commandant despite his nomination, and a subsequent medical emergency that kept him from work for several months.
His reaffirmation of Force Design is not unexpected. Serving as the assistant commandant to former Marine Corps chief Gen. David Berger, Smith played a crucial role in crafting and executing the plan’s initial steps and has been a strong public advocate for Berger’s ideas despite receiving criticism from retired officers. His elevation to commandant could have allowed him to shift the service’s direction if he so chose.
Berger first introduced his ideas for Force Design 2030 in his own CPG published in 2019. The Marine Corps has since shortened “Force Design 2030” to just “Force Design,” acknowledging that the changes and adaptations required for future conflicts will extend beyond this decade.
“We have a finite budget, and each of the services must make hard decisions to prioritize resources to prepare for the future fight,” Smith’s guidance states. “The Marine Corps has many competing requirements, all of which are important. We must sequence our investments over time, applying capital when and where it makes the most difference. Simultaneously, we must sustain the hard work that led to a clean audit for the service.”
One of the most significant budget items for the Marine Corps pertains to its amphibious ships and the forces deployed on them, known as the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU). In his guidance, Smith referred to the ARG/MEU as the “premiere force offering of our Corps” and emphasized that he would spare no expense to “keep it that way.”
A key objective is to maintain a “3.0 requirement” for combatant commanders, which entails “heel-to-toe” deployments of one MEU from the East Coast, West Coast, and forward-deployed naval forces in Japan. (“Heel-to-toe” implies that as one ARG/MEU departs a region to return home, another simultaneously begins its deployment, ensuring constant presence.) This goal aligns with the service’s historical policies, although actually realizing it has been a challenge in recent years.
Smith acknowledged that meeting this goal may necessitate increased funding from lawmakers. He emphasized the importance of amphibious ships and also highlighted capabilities focusing on contested logistics and littoral mobility, as well as joint and coalition command and control, along with long-range precision fires.
While not specifically mentioned in the guidance, Smith’s document indicates there is no intention to reverse the Marines’ shift away from tanks or other changes advocated by Berger. The decision to divest tanks has been one of the more contentious aspects of the Force Design dialogue.
“To meet the material and personnel readiness goals associated with a 3.0 MEU requirement, the United States Navy will likely require increased resources across multiple Future Years Defense Programs (FYDP),” Smith concluded.
