 So, General, we want to deeply thank you for joining us for this session. And I thought, and the General needs no introduction, I'm going to do like Tom Ricks and actually save our time for conversation rather than restating your amazing bio. And I thought a way to open up the conversation would be to ask how that bio might, you hope, read ten years from now. And by that, when some future historian is writing about this period, what is one primary sort of policy goal that you hope they note about your bio over the next ten years? What's the, in many ways, kind of what, how will a future historian, you hope, write your legacy over this period that you're leading in? That's a difficult question. But some guy that nobody thought was going to be the commandant came in, replaced an incredibly popular officer who went on to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and he had these ideas about how the force should be formed and trained and educated, and that there was a way to leverage technology to operational advantage, and that through a lot of coordination and cooperation and salesmanship he was able to convince the force that if they didn't change they were not going to be successful in the future, and that the collective changes that were made have resulted in a Marine Corps that still has utility and capability for the nation in the future, and continues to be the nation's force and readiness and rapid response force. So if that's the hope, what's the nightmare scenario? What's the scenario that keeps you up at night when you think about the future of war? What's the discussion so far that's touched on everything from geographic problems, Syria, Ukraine, to major trends that range from new technologies to open source intelligence? When you pull back, when you worry, what keeps you up at night? I think we know what to do. I think talking to the other service chiefs, talking to General Milley, and I mean we've all served together and known each other, and one of the interesting things for the last 15 years of war, there's very, very few of us who haven't been with each other somewhere else in a much less nice place than this beautiful room on a beautiful sunshiney day. I think we need a war in France again, really, is what I'm saying. You all just got your tweetable moment there. Not that I would wish that on the French people, but that we can't do what we need to do fast enough, that we can't adapt fast enough, that we can't figure out a way to be agile and flexible enough, and that we can take the technologies that are out there or that we don't even know about, but when they appear, adapt them for the use of at least a portion of the force. I think history will tell you, there's no way you're always in a transition. You look at any military over history, and there's always a part of the force that's got the newer capability that everybody else is waiting, so you're always going to fight a modernized slash legacy force. I think the goal is, my concern is, is that our potential adversaries are going fast because they have a different system to be able to do that, and we're not going to be able to... Can you flesh that out, a different system? Well, just the way they acquire their equipment, the funding stream that they have, I mean, we're expensive. I mean, $600 billion is a lot of money, and we, you know, for the Marine Corps, almost 70% of our budget goes to pay for people. So the money left for acquisition, for training, for education, even though education is probably the cheapest way to maintain your effectiveness. And just some of the rules, I think General Milley talked today about how long it's going to take to, you know, get a pistol. I mean, I went in the AFIS over at Balling, and there's like a Chinese-made DJI quadcopter right there as a Christmas present. I mean, I'd get arrested if I flew it in the district, but for $500 with a camera. So why didn't every rifle squad have one of those things? And if it breaks, it's $500. So we've bought these things, and we're going to go give them to an infantry battalion, and we're going to go fly them around in the next year. But then you'll have to bid it. You'll have to be some test and evaluation. I mean, I can go on Groupon and buy one for $100 today with a camera. Probably doesn't fly very far, very long. So I mean, that's the thing that concerns me is just we've got to go faster. So we were actually having this conversation, both down in Quantico, but also at lunch today with a different group. And it was how, when there's something available on the open market, like you just gave the example of, and the military's not providing it, you often see people use it anyway. So the example in Iraq War 2.0 would be GPS wasn't pushed down all the way to say the platoon level, and people ended up bringing their own to we had that happen with body armor. We had that happen with the camelbacks. Do you think that might happen with this kind of technology? If we're not pushing, if we're not able to get it out to forces, well, they say, guess what, I've got it at home. I'm going to bring it anyway. Is that a fear? Is that a positive thing? I think it's both. I remember the body armor thing. There were people that didn't believe that the body armor we had was effective even though I was very confident there was, because I talked to enough Marines that got shot in the body armor and they walked away unscathed. We still have parents because they read something that what we were buying wasn't good. And you hate to see people waste their money out of their concern to take care of their Marine soldier or sailor airman. But I think all the leadership, we've just got to be more open to this and figure out a way to move faster. I mean, the urgent uns and the joint universal needs statement and the process that we developed in OIF and OEF, I think that helped us go faster. I give you an example. I mean, we developed the Marine forces in AMBAR, developed mine rollers in four months. We had an idea. We told a bunch of guys that the logistics group and the CBs, Monster Garage, you got one week, make mine rollers. I got pictures. I'll show them to you. And we got a design. We sent it back. They built one. They sent it back. We said, make more. And then the contractors found out about it and they started making them. But until June of 2006, there were no mine rollers on the battlefield. And now they're just in that particular environment where you have IUDs. And then we did it because we knew the enemy was going to adapt. We knew that we were going to jam them and so they're going to go to pressure. And so we had to have something to beat pressure. And we did. And so now it becomes that the in and the yang they give and the take on the battlefield that probably will never go away. But you're always trying to be the one that drives the tempo to make the adversary change to your capability, not vice versa. So let's move forward 10 years. It's the year 2026. How does the Marine Corps look? And I want to break it down in different areas. How is it handling recruiting and retention the same? How is it handling it different? I think fundamentally the Marine Corps will be similar in organization. We'll have a ground combat element of infantry, artillery and some sort of armor protected mobility. We'll have to have some logistical sustainment and we'll have an aviation piece. Now the difference I think is going to be what's in those things. How many Marines are actually in the infantry as opposed to how many Marines are now involved in communications, intelligence, information warfare, electronic warfare, cyber? How many of those aircraft will be manned and unmanned? How many of those vehicles will be driven by human beings or driven robotically? How we deliver the stuff? How many, where do we get our parts? Do we have a big parts block? Are we printing our own parts? So again, I don't know how fast, if you believe Moore's law applies to all these other technologies and you're going to get this every 18 to 24 months, you're going to get this big change and the curve continues to go up, that could happen faster, maybe it happened faster than we think. So I think we'll still be an air ground task force. We'll still come from the sea. I think we'll have to be able to operate in a more distributive manner. I think that they're going to interrupt there. That's an organization question. So the MAGTAF, the size of the units within it, how they're organized, how they're structured, will they look the same, will they be different? So if you look at the, for example, the Army with ground forces, looking backwards, we saw the shift from divisions to brigade. What about within the Marine Corps in this period? Do you envision that kind of all the way down to maybe the fire team level? Well, I think the base unit for the Army is the brigade, today's brigade combat team. For us, it's a battalion. I think it's going to end up being some sort of a reinforced company, infantry company with enhanced communications and capabilities that they'll be able to do, because they're going to be distributed across the battlefield, assuming that we can protect the grid and we can still communicate, because if we can communicate with them, we can still deliver fires and support of them or deliver logistics and support of them. So I think you're going to see things that, I mean, it happened in the last war and it had a lot to do with just the way we were distributed across the force. So we had sergeants doing what lieutenants did and lieutenants doing what majors did and majors doing what colonels did and colonels doing what generals did and generals being political, Palm Hill coordinators with coalition forces and the tribes and all that stuff. I mean, it was, but that was the nature of that fight. So I think everything will get pushed down because we have the capability to do that and then the question is, are we going to be able to, is the network, which I think is both our critical vulnerability and our friendly center of gravity, that thing we have to protect, is that going to be there? And we haven't had to worry about that for the last 15 years, because no one was threatening the network. Now we have to worry about that, because there are those out there that we could end up becoming involved with have certainly other capability to take the things today that we take for granted. I mean, we're talking a couple of army officers in the back and I mean, they've grown up in an environment where they walk into the operations center, they turn on all the computers are running, they all got beautiful, you know, LED flat screens, they have perfect knowledge, they got an unlimited bandwidth, but they're not moving, they're stationary. If we're going to go back to being, fight a war maneuver, which I think is highly probable, whether it's on land or the sea or even in the air, you're going to have to be able to pick that stuff and take it with you. And as the communication is going to be there, are the weapons that rely on GPS or some other space-based navigational system to give you the precision that we've taken for granted now, is it going to be there? So that's where I think we're going to go, it's all going to get pushed down, assuming that we can protect the thing that we need to protect. All of those pressures leads to something that I know you're very passionate about, is it leads to new challenges of leadership. So the officers that have grown up in a world where all the data is at their fingertips and what happens when it goes away or what happens to the unit that has GPS that now needs to navigate on its own. So what does that lead to the training in the year 2026 or leading up to it? Or how will professional military education need to evolve? If you could see one change that should happen to prepare officers for that period, what would you like to see happen? Well, to me, you educate for the future and you train for the current fight. So education is what allows you hopefully the intellectual agility and flexibility to if you go somewhere and it isn't the way you thought it was going to be when you got there, you're able to see that it's, well, this isn't exactly what I thought it was going to be and now we have to change to this. On the training side, I think we've already started, I think we've all recognized, and again, I can't, I mean, my focus is more on the naval force, but I think even in the Army, because interesting thing about your Marine Corps is we are kind of a joint force and we've got our own fixed wing and rotor wing aviation, we've got our own ground combat element, we've got command and control, we're part of a naval force. So we think organizationally we're in a good place. What's in that? So I think for training though, I think we already realized and it's already started, units have gone out done an exercise and they just unplug. It's okay, it's gone. No net, what are you gonna do now? Still got radios, you know, HF works good. I was in Albany, Georgia at our logistics base yesterday and they were fixing the Track 170, which is a terrestrial band, you know, data moving things, Skywave, it's probably pretty hard to jam that. And then they've 400% improvement on the bandwidth on that capability and all the services have had this. You know, one thing we've fought is we've, part of that bandwidth that we've had has been lost to commercial applications so we're always fighting to maintain that bandwidth, which is a whole other problem. But things like that, so there you get into the dilemma, how much of this kind of legacy stuff that you have a certain amount of confidence in, do you keep and spend money on and maintain it and train on it and how much do you go into, you know, space, cyber, network-based applications. And so that becomes a training issue because it becomes a time and space thing. So I just think we have to be prepared, we can't assume that the things that we've assumed in the last 15 years are gonna be there and we have to anticipate. We have to think more about other capabilities that could be applied against us. So this is gonna be a different kind of session than some of the ones we've seen and he's very kindly agreed to this. So one of the areas that we've provided here is the polling, where we've asked you questions. Everyone's looking down and getting ready to poll. It's actually, you're not gonna answer. He's gonna answer the polling questions. Did I agree to that? Yeah, and so, but he's gonna give the chance to explain his answer. So there are multiple choice questions and this is not a presidential debate. You actually do have to answer. You have to choose one of them. So the first question is we've asked people to weigh in essentially on issues of national security to the United States. And between A, Russia, B, China, C, Iran, D, terrorism, E, cyber, and F, climate change, which doesn't get sufficient attention? Which should we put more resources, more planning, more effort into? You want me to answer that? Yes. So, Russia, China. Cyber. Cyber, why? I think we have a lot of capabilities but it's very difficult in a Western democratic, liberal society to, at least at the present time, accept some restrictions on your ability to do things because we're the part of the network that's kind of the false promises that we're all gonna use it for the right reasons and it's all gonna be out there and it's gonna make us, come bring us closer together and the world would be a better place. But the truth is that there are, it's probably true to a certain degree but it's also become a place where people that would do us harm would take advantage of our values and our culture to do us harm. So I worry about the fact that, things that we take for granted, like the fact that the lights are on in here or that water's gonna be clean or the power's gonna work or the traffic lights or the banking system are gonna be there because we have a certain expectation for that. Again, it goes back to the network. The other ones are all legitimate problems but that's the one I worry about because we're conflicted. No one wants to deny anybody their rights under the Constitution of the United States but there's a certain point where, look at the discussion now about Apple and the encryption on the phone. That's kind of, I'm not gonna weigh in either way on that but I think that's kind of the poster child for this whole discussion. So that actually leads to one of the other questions that they were just asked which was will a cyber attack result in a human death in the next year? And I believe the results if you could pull up the polling, I believe 59 or 69% of the folks in this room said yes or you can bring the polling up but what about your thoughts on, will we see cyber attack moving not just kinetic but actually lethal? Well, we have to stay in the unclass area here. I mean, is bullying another human being on the network of cyber attack? Has that not caused the death of innocent people? As far as in a nation against the United States, I don't know. Again, I think I don't know what I don't know. I know Admiral Rogers and I know a little bit about what his organization does and I know they're working really hard just like everybody else is to make sure that the network is reliable and safe and that it doesn't cause the death of somebody. I think I wouldn't say it couldn't happen but I'm more concerned about something on a larger scale. Where some major capability gets shut down by some entity out there that would wanna do the United States harm. So one of the other questions, we had a very active panel on this. In 10 years when it comes to the reporting of war, do you think it'll be coming from reporters, A, reporters with independent media organizations, B, reporters with state-sponsored organizations, C, individuals with some kind of personal technology, i.e. social media who are civilians, or D, combatants themselves with blogs and their own social media? I think the answer is all of the above and we're already there. It's already happening now as we speak. I mean, a perfect example of a nation using information I guess would be Russia, TV station, Russia today. Anybody seen that? It's wonderful. It's very well done. I was in UK last year and I was watching it and they were interviewing a allegedly an American citizen who had been rescued from Yemen by the Russian Navy and this individual was opining about the fact that her country had not been there and we're gonna thank goodness for the great support of the Russian Navy to rescue me from this terrible place that my nation left me alone in. It's not a lie if you believe it. I mean, it was very powerful. So if you take whatever you wanna call the facts and turn them multiple ways, then that becomes the story. Having people on the battlefield report, having individual combatants report, I think ISIL is very, very effective in their narratives and the information that they use to both recruit and to send their message and to either anger, intimidate or whatever they're trying to do, the rest of us. So the fact that we have these communication devices and we have the network, I think it's not gonna be like you get a bunch of print reporters in the room before the landing on D-Day and say, okay, this is where we're gonna go but don't write this in the newspaper. What about Marines telling their own stories via blogs, via social media? We had, today we had both, we sort of saw the two sides of this. On one hand, someone talking about how Russian soldiers gave away their role in operations. On the other hand, we had a U.S. Army officer who runs arguably the most popular Army blog. I think it depends on what they're talking about. If it's current ops or things that they're involved in, I think it becomes an ops occasion. Officers wanna write about what they're doing and show their ideas but think about it. So somebody writes an article about this is how we address the IED threat when we were in this country and here's how our vehicles were organized and here's our formation and here's how far apart we were and here's the networks we talked on and here's what we did when we found an IED and I read these things. And the individual, they don't mean any harm. They're trying to educate and inform the rest of the force but anybody else reading that says okay, so I know exactly how they're gonna show up when they come to get this IED and it gives them operational advantage. So you don't wanna inhibit academia and the development of ideas and the training but at the same time, you gotta be smart about what you do. People put a lot of stuff on social media. Simple things like casualties, casualty reporting. And you know, I mean, I will tell you the first report's always wrong. It's either incomplete or inaccurate or both. And so if people are allowed to do that, it makes it more difficult to get the accurate information. And then go back to just smartphone technology. I was talking to Fleet Forces Command Commander and they know the Navy is back. All of us were kind of back to the future and there's enough people in here looking around probably served during the Cold War where we used to go to the field and we practiced not talking on the radio and figuring out how to deceive the enemy or changing our frequency or just going dark on the net using analog things. So, you know, people are back to doing that. How do I mask myself? How do I hide in plain sight? But yet if all our soldiers, sailor, airmen, marines, they're on ship and the ship's turned off the radar, they're not transmitting but someone goes out on the weather deck with their smartphone to check their Facebook page. And then they've got, is this the, and then the little thing pops up. Is this the location you'd like me to identify you with? Yeah, yeah, I'm on board the USS Neversale. Yeah, I'm right here, I'm out in the middle of the ocean so tell everybody in the world where I am. And we haven't, I mean we're actually having a conversation about this. So does that mean when we deploy or we go to the field or we cross a line or parts of everybody, the first sergeant or the gunning comes by with a box and picks up all our cell phones? Yes. Yes it does. You mean I'm gonna be gone for an undetermined period of time and I can't check my Facebook page? Yeah, pretty much. Pretty much. So, I mean, I am being somewhat facetious but I am deadly serious because it is a deadly serious issue. And we've gotta get a little bit harder on this because as I've told the Marines and everybody else, you know your military, your US, we're not a bronze, silver, metal force. It's gold or don't come home. And that's what you expect, that's what your pan is for. So I'm gonna, we're gonna go get the gold or come home on our shield. And we're gonna do whatever we gotta do to make that happen. So appropriate to this last question of social media, the other thing that the generals kindly and bravely agree to do is to go through a Twitter lightning round. So what I've done is collect questions from Twitter and he will give quick tweetable answers to them. So basically try and keep them to one sentence if you can and so we're just gonna blast through several of these before we open up to the audience here. So the first is from at S. Cheney Peters, who asks, what does the future look like for US Marine Corps operating from USN, US Navy platforms? Any tech developments that would cause a rethink? I think we're always looking at how we're gonna do it different. And we wanna do it the way we do it now better but we may have to look at how we do it different, how we array the force. Okay, at Kevin, sorry, Kevin Barron is sitting here but at Defense Barron asks, if the GWAT is drones and soft, what is USMC role? Are you being left out, good or bad thing? I don't think we're being left out. We see ourselves as an enabler and we think we're soft's best partner and we've been a good partner in a lot of things that you probably just don't know about. All right. At John McCrae, the second I.I. What parts of the MAGTF will eventually become autonomous and what advantage will that provide? I think probably the logistics will be the first one to go where there's more less human involvement and more autonomy and man-machine interface. Okay, at Spawn of Khan, James Griffin asks, essentially about the scale of amphibious operations that you expect in the future. The odds are most will be small across the range of military operations but I would never discount the possibility of a large multiple brigade landing. A scenario in a certain book. I've made you a lot of money on that book. We were joking about this. No royalties by the way, I'm just saying. We were joking about this that you had a very, very kind quote saying every marine should buy ghost fleet and I can tell you that that is the one order they have not followed. Okay, so. So much for being the commentator. From at Jersey Cyber, how will the Corps recruit and retain cyber talent without sacrificing its amphibious brand? I don't see them as separate. We're working hard and talking to Marines. There's a lot of interest. Marines don't come in one model type series. There's enough Marines out there and there are enough young men and women in the country that wanna serve their country as Marines that will have the capability we need. This links a little bit to a prior question. At David M. Shield asks, how will technology like autonomous robots and AI change the way the USMC fights? So you talked about logistics. How does it move into the fighting side? You know, we were talking earlier. I think you have to see the battlefield and in the past you had to see it with the human eye. I think now you're gonna be able to see it with the machine's eye and then not put the human at risk until you need to. Okay, and this is Twitter. So this one was from atcharlie underscore Simpson who asked, why are Marine uniforms so much better than all the other services? Yes. Yes. All right. So with that, let's open it up to all of you. If you could raise your hand and wait for the mic to come to you and stand and introduce yourself. So let's go right over here on the left. And one last thing, every question ends with a question mark. General, I'm David Wood with New America and The Huffington Post. Just to follow up on the Twitter question about recruiting, as you move more into distributed operations and more technologically advanced support functions, are you re-looking at who you recruit? And for example, are you thinking about selecting older people and doing some kind of screening for technological experience and knowledge? We realized that we needed to take a look at who we brought in. I mean, the first thing when we recruited, we find out that the individual wants to be a Marine. That's the first thing. So you want to be a Marine then we'll figure out what their talents and their skills are. And so we have a very bright, smart force but the first thing is they're gonna be able to be a Marine. Looking for the skills and the intellect and the resiliency and the discipline to do these things. We normally find enough of that residually in the force. So going to like Marfor Cyber is kind of like going to Marsock. We're gonna go out and we're gonna give a screen test, they're gonna do a different test and we'll have a profile of what that person looks like. And so far, we're gonna make our numbers. There's a group of Quantico right now looking at the entire organization of the Marine Corps to determine what capabilities and in what number we're gonna need in 2025. So we know we need cyber Marines and calm Marines and Intel analysts, how many more? So that might change kind of the MOSes that we give and there are certain criteria that go with that. So right now we're able to find them. The harder part's keeping them. And so once they make it, because these are very smart young men and women and they've got a skill set that's available out there that's very marketable in the civilian world. So I'm not as worried about finding them as I am about once we get them trained up as keeping them. But in talking to them goes back to the first point. They join to be Marines. They love to be Marines. So long as we can keep them engaged doing stuff that they enjoy, they're happy to stay at a Marine Corps. Let's give someone on this side a chance. Gotta go with the boss in the front. New America and General Nellers. Thank you so much for coming. I'm mindful of one of the lead characters in Ghostly. I wanna go back to the 2026 projection and ask you what percentage of the Marine Corps will be women. Right now we're about seven and a half, eight percent. I've told the recruiters to go get us to 10. After that, again, it becomes a capacity. It becomes almost a, you know, we have so much capacity down at Parris Island so I have to look at that. But I think it's gonna be 10 or higher. Doing, I mean, we've got great female Marines and they provide a tremendous capability of the force and I wanna put them in a position where they can best take advantage of the skills and sets that they bring to the organization. So the decisions that have been made have given opportunity for us to put women in places they weren't before. And I'm pretty confident in a lot of those areas that's gonna make us a better force. So as that's opened up, it's logical that we need to increase the number of women. So we'll see if we can recruit them. I think we can. And then it goes back to any other Marine that's talented and we have to be able to keep them, we have to keep them all. I mean, we turn over, I know we recruit 32, 33,000 Marines a year and every year we have to retain about a quarter of them to keep the grade shape. And we're a very young force. We got eight Marines for every officer. 60% of the Marine Corps under the age of 25. So that's why, you know, God love them. You know, it's what makes us, gives us the capability we have and sometimes gives us some of the issues that we have. But they're doing a great job and I'm very honored and proud to try to do my part here and after 40 years. What a lot of people may not know about you is you have a master's in human resources management. Let's sit that question a little bit further beyond just recruitment on the retention side. What's something that you wanna see that you're putting effort into changing in this period? Retention hasn't been a problem the last few years because quite frankly, Marines, we were concerned about the number of deployments but actually the deployments actually helped retention because nobody joins the Marine Corps to sit on their seabag at Camp Lejeune or Camp Pendleton. The career force is a little different and they're more mature. They have families and all that but they still, they wanna stay in the Marine Corps. So I think as far as retention, we have to target it if it takes, there's a lot of different tools. Some of it may be monetary, some of it may be benefits, some of it may be duty station. I think we have to be a little more artful and moving people for the right reason from coast to coast and around the world. The demographics changed. A lot of spouses work, have their own career. I don't like, there's a lot of Marines that are geographically bachelors or bachelorettes. I don't like to see that because when you're married, you're supposed to be with your family. So those are issues. We're gonna work through that. Education I think is a big benefit that people are looking for for the particularly young generation. They just wanna be able to better themselves. And so some of the force of the future stuff that Secretary Carter has put forward of interest, particularly the education piece in the fellowships I think give people a break and then bring them back and put them out there and let them do their business. Let's get a question from someone in the back right there. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. So I wanted to get your opinion on how we can better integrate the Navy and the Marine Corps so as to improve our amphibious and naval capabilities for future conflict. The CNO and I have talked about this and we're working on this together with them because quite frankly the last 15 years we've, I mean we're part of the naval force but we've been operating primarily ashore. We've deployed Marine Expeditionary Units on ship. In fact there's three underway today. You'll see in the news here coming up in the next couple of days if the weather cooperates there'll be a fairly substantial amphibious exercise on the Korean Peninsula as part of an exercise there. But you know we've, the Navy has done, they've done what they've done with carriers and we've done it done what we've done with amphibs and then what we haven't done is fight as a naval force. We've done it in our history, in World War II probably the last time we actually put the whole thing together because there's no way that any Marine landing force is gonna land on an objective unless the Navy is there to help set the conditions to allow that landing force to land, to establish air and maritime superiority to clear the mines and all that. And there's quite frankly I think the fleet needs the embarked Marines and the capabilities they bring to help do sea control and get them, get the whole force to the landing force. So in exercises that have started back in 2012 with bold alligator you will see and they're gonna continue to see more and more fleet-like operations where we take advantage of the capabilities that both the Navy and the Marine Corps bring together to operate as a naval force. Part of the other thing we're looking at is do we have the right mix of Navy officers and Marine staffs and Marine officers on Navy staffs so that we get this cross-fertilization and discussion about how we can best leverage each other's capabilities and fight more effectively as a naval force? Is there a question over here? Okay, right there, yeah. Thank you very much. General Paul Joyle from NSI. My question concerns going dark. Russia is developing EMP weapons, sophisticated electronic warfare systems. What do we have to counter that? Both from an offensive and a defensive standpoint. We're also using some of that equipment in Ukraine and Syria to jam GPS, battlefield communications and other cell phones, et cetera. So please elaborate. It actually got dropped on my desk today by our intel guys, tactical kind of a briefsheet on what those capabilities are and what they've been using. So I mean, it's not rocket science we used to do it. You use terrain to mask, you move at night, you don't turn on your radios, you figure out alternate means, you come up and report, you go back down. A lot of it goes back to leadership and mission type orders so the commanders understand the intent, the ability to, everybody likes looking at the 10 digit GPS grid but you're gonna have to have a map in your pocket and a compass and a red lens flashlight and so there's some things you can do that are pretty simple physical things to protect yourself. But what I was telling Peter before, I think it's, you always wanna have, you wanna be able to see the battlefield, you wanna be able to move with speed and you wanna have some sort of deception or surprise and I think it's gonna become increasingly more difficult as long as the network stays up unless you wanna deny it to your adversary but then they can deny it to you to have that happen. I think, you used to be able to get it, the surprise would go, ships sail, okay, where did they go? Well, now you go on Google Earth, you know where everybody is. So it's gonna be more difficult. So I don't, we could get in it without getting into classification, I think there's just some physical, simple tactics and techniques and procedures that we need to get back into that we used to do. We've talked to the Ukrainians, they've given us some ideas and it goes back to some of the acquisition of using radars and using electronic warfare, jamming and other things that are gonna be available in some of our future systems. Doesn't mean I think we're gonna have to train it. You're gonna have to train it. We used to have at 29 Pauls, we got to a large maneuver exercise out there. We have an organization in the Marine Corps called Radio Battalion and they do a number of things using electromagnetic spectrum and they used to go out there and play the op for and they would, sometimes they just jam you, sometimes they try to use imitated deception. We assume our encryption is gonna work. We need to go out and have somebody with a comparable adversarial capability out there whether they're on a cyber range or communicators or somebody out there and contest us because we haven't been contested and we'll figure it out. So there's the quote from, that's attributed to Mark Twain that history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes and I know you have a deep interest in history so what period in history and maybe more specifically what Marines in history do you look to as guideposts to the future of war? You know the World War II experience that the Marine Corps had with the Navy in the Pacific you know where our opponent at that time occupied a bunch of islands and established kind of a network of security is kind of interesting to study and look at and that's where the Marine Corps mission to seize and secure advanced naval bases for further prosecution of the naval campaign. So I've been reading about that, about Marines in amphibious war. I've looked to people like General Lejeune for the education of the Marine Corps after World War I where he realized that we had to continue to develop the force and that the war that they had just fought in France was not going to be the next war and they started a number of experiments. You know the fleet exercises and came up with amphibious doctrine. You know we don't have the benefit of an interwar period because the deployment tempo is as high as it was when we were full up in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we're going to take a unit and we're going to go out and experiment and give them some of the capabilities and see how it goes. And I think the most effective part of that will be given the capabilities to young Marine officers and Marines and let them tell us, does this give them operational advantage or not? So the history is, I think there's a lot of people who've even further back in Marines that I think if you read the history, people who are military innovators like Scipio-Africanus and not to get crazy here but or even Genghis Khan about maneuver and how to maneuver across the battle space, how to communicate, how to take other people's ideas and make them your own. So I don't claim to be an expert but I think most Marines, most military professionals I met are big historians and like to read history. Because you want to learn something new, read an old book. Well, General, you have been incredibly kind and gracious to take our varied questions and varied forms to join us today. We very much appreciate it and all that you do for the nation. So please join me in a round of applause.