 It is now my honor to introduce the 38th Commodant of the Marine Corps and a friend to our college, General David Berger. Good morning. First, thanks to Admiral for inviting me back to speak with you all today. I was getting ready for the comments today for the remarks I thought about the subjects and the theme for this year, what I might want to talk about, what you might want to hear. So I looked at the schedule right here for the forum over the last couple of days, and I saw on there that you've already, I believe, heard from the Secretary of the Navy and the CNO and also heard from a brilliant professor from Johns Hopkins, which was a school that I was fortunate enough to attend as a student. So my thinking first was, you already heard from my boss, you already heard from my teachers, so we might as well just go straight into Q&A. But I'm, of course, just kidding. So that took me back a little bit further in 10 years ago or nine years ago. I look at the schedule here and I find Dr. Brands again. So here's my learning there just to pass on to you. If Dr. Brands was part of a panel in 2014, not the moderator, just on a panel. And then by this year, now he's a featured keynote address speaker. But I think that's a great progression. But I think after you're a keynote speaker, you probably get put out to pasture like an old cow or a horse. So I think the good part of going last where I am in this batting order is that none of my esteemed colleagues can really call me out if I say something wrong. But I'm also not going to tread old ground that they've already covered. So I thought I would talk about something that may actually surprise you a bit. And that's people. And more specifically, I'm going to talk about our people. And I'm talking about Americans and service members, civilian leaders who serve and why the quality of their training, their leadership and most of all what they stand for. Why is that set them apart from any other nation in the world in my opinion? They are different. We are different, plain and simple. And while some may have perhaps a more pessimistic outlook of the future, I would offer the evidence of the oath that I administered to 260 new second lieutenants at the Naval Academy a couple of weeks ago, which was the same oath that I first swore to uphold 42 years ago, the same oath that has its roots, as you all are aware, dating back to 1789, and really the very subject, the very object of its allegiance. Because as you all know, our oath in the United States, if you're serving in the military is not to a party, not to a person, but to set ideals to the principles basically that are written in the Constitution. And there may be adversaries, perhaps through theft or whatever, they may match our technology at some point, or whose militaries may one day equal us in their tactical competency. But I feel confident that there's no other nation, big or small, that equals us in dedication to the ideals of freedom. And those ideals are why we fight. You call me naive, but I think while we occasionally struggle to see that in ourselves, I don't think it's lost on our allies and partners. And the simple fact that our history is filled with conflicts where we have shed our own blood in the defense of others, that's not lost on our allies and partners either. Our dedication, in other words, to those principles, that's the reason why our competitors are pretty quick to point out any lapses in behavior or commitment from our service members, which happens every once in a long while. It's why, in other words, the times when our forces may not quite measure up, may not quite live up to their ideals, to our ideals, all of a sudden become matters of international attention. Meanwhile, contrast that with the routine brutal actions of our adversaries. And that story doesn't even make page two of a news. So you think about that for a second. Why is that? What we stand for, what makes America different are the ideals that we're measured against. And we are expected, you are expected to uphold them. Our leadership, in other words, to the theme of this week on the world stage, the way we engage with friend and enemy alike, it's built on this expectation. The coalitions that we built, the alliances that we defend, they're fundamentally stronger when they're based on ideals and mutual respect and common cause. And moreover, I think I see our allegiances, our alliances, as a critical strength that's essential to what the secretary and the president call integrated deterrence. And I'm not talking about as a transactional relationship, as you would see with perhaps an autocratic regime. I think it's critical that our allies and partners, they're able to count on the professionalism, the ethical actions, the competency of our military members. These traits that I would say as much as our capabilities are really the foundation of trust. And that trust, that trust is the core principle of leadership. And I would say the struggle for freedom and self-determination that's occurring right now in Ukraine that's playing out real time, that's what the inverse looks like, which is illegal, immoral, and frankly, unprofessional actions of the Russian military leaders and some of their military members. That's just one example of what our competitors are offering. And one other note there, I would say just the fact that the Chinese Communist Party hasn't condemned that invasion, that pretty much speaks for itself. In contrast, for that, the professionalism of our soldiers and our sailors, airmen, guardians, and Marines, sets us, sets them apart. But as much as it makes our military stand out, it also draws other nations closer from our global network of training exercises happening around the world every week to our military schoolhouses. Other nations want their military members to train, to learn, to fight alongside ours. And there's a reason why our military colleges and universities are filled with officers and enlisted men and women of our partner nations. There's a reason why every time I meet with my kind of military leader from another country, my counterparts, they, to an individual almost without fail, have attended some U.S. military school during their career. It's not a coincidence. And then in your classes there in Newport, 20%, as you all might already be aware, 20% in your class alone, international students, 50 nations represented there. I think they don't all come there for tactics. I think there's an ideological foundation for that. You'd have to ask yourself, in other words, do you want your military leadership, your military leaders to be a product of Leon Young, which is the PLAN Naval Academy, or maybe St. Petersburg Naval Academy, like the Russian Naval Academy, is that what you're looking for? Or do you want them to graduate from Newport or Annapolis or Quantico or Monterey? Do you want them to learn what to think or how to think? America's leadership, the theme of this couple of days, is tied to our moral leadership. And any other country, if it were ever to replace us on the world stage, they might try to do it by force or it could be because of a lapse in our own commitment to our values that tie the free world together. In conflict, in other words, and in peace, the men and women of our armed services, they're often the most visible representation of our nations, of our country's values and their actions, their professionalism, their strength in both military capability and moral courage. That's what our allies and adversaries use to judge our capability for being a world leader. And if those attributes ever decline, so too will the trust in our leadership as a global power. Our people, in other words, as much as our policy is what preserves our leadership role. Let me just say that again. Our people, as much as our policy, is what preserves our leadership role in this world. And that's why it's so important that we have to continue to invest in their success, in the individual service member's success. We have to continue to ensure the health of our all volunteer force, so that the quality of service member meets the gravity of their role in our nation's defense in our nation's future. In competition or in conflict, what we do, and sometimes more, sometimes more importantly, what we don't do, that makes us unique among the great powers of the world. And the foundation of that starts in places like the Naval War College and the Marine Corps University. Because our intellectual, our moral foundation, that's inseparable from our leadership. And our leadership is first and foremost a human endeavor, which brings me full circle back to the very people that are sitting in the audience today. For generations, leaders of our military have come to these halls where you're at a new port to be educated, to solve really hard problems and to recommit themselves to the idea behind their oath. The students who pass through here, they've received one of the finest educations available, no question, hands down. Then they go back to the fleet or back to the fleet Marine Force or back to their parent service to do one thing. They go back to leave. And in a few weeks, most of you will leave here and you'll head off to your new duty stations and your new billets and positions, different countries to start the next chapter of your careers. And you will be armed certainly with a year's worth of education. And importantly, importantly, the time that you've had in that year to sit and think about everything you've learned. Oh, from my perspective, it's important that you take that experience back with you to the betterment of everyone that you're going to serve with everyone you're going to leave. But I have a challenge for you. And I think it's one that you're up to beyond the joint, beyond the national security curriculum, beyond strategy and policy discussions, beyond all that. I challenge you to think about what led you here in the first place. And for that, some of you are going to have to look back and some of you look a ways back. Remember who you were before you began this journey? What was it that drew you to the military? What was it that kept you going through even the tough times? What is it that will guide you through all the situations in front of you in the future? Your experience? Yes, certainly. Of course it's your experience. Certainly the education, including this year here. But I bet, I bet for everyone in that room, everyone in the audience, it all starts with that oath. That feeling that you had when you raised your hand, and I remember that myself 42 years ago. It was solemn. I was very proud. It was exciting, but it was also humbling. And the folks in the audience today, I think probably have very similar experiences. We are different from most people. And it's incumbent on us, us leaders, you to bear that responsibility while you wear this uniform. So when you're in a dark place, when you don't have all the right answers, remember that. Remember your oath. I hope there's something in what I've said for each of you to take forward with you as you go on to your bright careers that are right laying out in front of you. And I wish you all the very best. Really, again, thank you, Admiral, for allowing me to spend some time with the group today. And here, I'd love to hear what's on your mind, either feedback for me or questions for me. And I'm going to turn it back over to your end. And I'll stand by for whatever's on your mind. Okay, open it up for any questions. Yes, sir. Hey, General Berger. Good morning, sir. John Davidson, Department of the Army, civilian, United States Marine Corps retired. Sir, my question for you is this, okay, during the course of my research on one of my papers here, I discovered that the United States has not maintained an enduring ARGMU presence in the St. Com AOR going back to January of 2022. That's over a year and a half ago, which in my mind that is an enduring trend. And we also recently saw with the political turmoil in Sudan that the United States did not have the availability of an ARGMU to support the NEO and was forced to rely upon the US NS Chesty puller as an in lieu of crisis response capability. So, sir, two questions for you. First is, what do you think? What's your perspective on the strategic implications of the continuance of this trend, this capability gap in that part of the world, and what needs to be done in order to correct it? And then secondly, kind of, you know, opening the aperture a bit. What is your vision? How do you envision Marine Corps forces, the fleet Marine Forces being employed in a contingency in the eastern Indian Ocean region in order to counter Chinese aggression either against Taiwan or within the South China Sea? Thank you, sir. Okay, John, welcome back to the Marine Corps family, even if it's just for an hour. Welcome back. What's the strategic implications of gaps in not having an amphibious ready group, Marine Expeditionary Unic and ARGMU in anywhere in Africa, in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean, the gap here's the gap to me translates into risk for the combatant commander. Because there are certainly instances where you can fly in a response force, and that's a great option. But there are so many other scenarios that you and I have seen where that's not an option. Either you don't have the basic, you don't have the access, you don't have the overflight, you don't have what you need to position a land-based force. And yet you still need the nation still needs to respond. And that is where an ARGMU comes in, because it's US sovereign territory and it's movable. So what does it mean for a combatant commander? It may take longer to respond to a crisis, which equals even more risk. He may not even be able to respond at all with what he should be with the right tool for the job. It may be the wrong tool, the wrong response force, because the right one isn't available. So from, you know, what does it mean, the strategic implications, the risk of something happening that we didn't forecast, and fewer options for the president and the secretary to choose from, or delays, which all adds up to increased risk, which they own. And I, and my job as a service chief, providing the capability that they can employ. So what do you do to correct it? A couple of things. First, increase the maintenance readiness of the amphibious ships that we have. We don't have a shortage of Marines or Marine units. They're ready to go. What we have is a shortage of available ships. So first step, the ships that we have right now, we have to bring the readiness level up. Lots of reasons for why they aren't at the readiness levels they ought to be, but that's another conversation. Second, you got to have the inventory of ships as a baseline to start from. Our assessment based on all the O plans and campaigning and national defense strategy and all the guidance that we have, add all that up, equals nothing less than 31 amphibious ships. If we have anything less than that, then we'll have more gaps. So we got to, we got to increase the readiness of what we have, and we got to make sure that the nation never has less than 31 amphibious ships that are operational. Continuity in the eastern Indian Ocean. Are you talking, just make sure I understand, are you talking more off the coast of Africa, or were you talking about? Sir, specifically in vicinity of say the Bay and Bengal, or the approaches to the Strait of Malacca. So that part of the eastern Indian Ocean region. The best response for us there, I would offer to you is probably, depending on how far inland it is on the continent, it's going to be from the sea. I'm going to give you a contrast. Recently, we had a challenge in Guam where we had two choices, an aircraft carrier or an ARGMU. An aircraft carrier brings a lot of tools with it, a lot of weapons systems. It's great for strike. It's great for a lot of things. It's not great for handling a crisis that you're talking about in that part of the region. It's built for high-end. It's built for different, it's a tool kit for a different purpose. Here, I would think that General Langley in Africa, the Middle East commander, they would want a sea-based response force that they could relocate, that they could move to where the problem is, and could sit offshore for long as you need to, to be ready to respond. Now, what's my vision for a contingency in the East Indian Ocean? Have a seaborne, have an embarked marine naval expeditionary force that the combatant commander can employ when and where he needs to? Over in the corner. Good morning, good morning General. This is a major Sam Houtling. I had a question about, I was fortunate to attend Cornerstone in Quantico, and we talked a little bit about the changing economy of our modern age, and that is moving to an experience economy, in that you see this evidenced in, I guess, this quitting culture where I don't want to work here anymore. I don't like my boss. I quit. Where we no longer see an industrial age, I'm working for the paycheck, I'm working for all these benefits. I know the Marine Corps is doing a lot of great things to address talent management. Where do you see the Marine Corps and the services as a whole competing in this environment of an experience economy where younger people are looking for all of their dreams met by the employer? And when those aren't met, I don't want to work here anymore. I'm about to go on recruiting, so I'd love to hear, love to hear your take on your intent for my next three years. Thanks, sir. There's some who paint the workforce and high school junior, senior sort of population in a broad brush as everyone, all. I'm not there at all. And I have recruiting experience, and I think it's dangerous to say all. And you didn't, but there's some who characterize, you know, all workers just want to sit around on a couch and work from home. And then if they're not happy tomorrow, they're going to get it, they're going to flip and go to another job. I think maybe that's probably true for some, but not all. I think the population that we recruit from 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, they want to do something that matters. They want to contribute. They want to be part of something special. They don't know what that is, but they want to have an impact. They will absolutely ask a lot of questions. They won't, they won't accept the initial, hey, this is the way it is. They want to know why they want to know the background. I think the challenge for employers, the challenge for the military, in more narrowly to the military is how do you meet the employee, the service member partway where we have a deeper understanding of what they're, what's important to them and where we can make adjustments to our, you know, like HR policies, what can we do to accommodate because we're going to need to retain them. And some of that may be leave or pay or after you have a baby, how much time you have off, what, how much education you can go on. Is there a opportunity for a sabbatical? We have to, we have to be, I think we're going to have to be more creative. At the end of the day though, at the end of the day, the flip side of that coin is they're joining, if you're, if you're going into the military, you're joining an organization that has commitments and you have to be willing to put them first and foremost. Your job, in other words, when you go on recruiting is first to learn about the individual, not to sell them yet, but first to learn about the individual. What makes them tick? What, what, what do they value the most? And then figure out how to match that up with the Marine Corps. But as you know, you are, I mean, becoming a Marine is a transformational process. It's not like you're joining a, joining a corporation and then you can skip over to another one. You are, you're going to be a Marine for the rest of your life, even out of uniform. So that, communicating that, helping them understand what this step might mean like is really important. I'm not a pessimist of this workforce. I think they shook the, the corporation, the private sector up a bit. I think the private sectors figuring out what can be done from home and what they got to come in to do. And frankly, I think the workforce over the next couple of years will also sort out how much human interaction is face to face is really necessary for, for our socialization as human beings. We'll have to sort all that out, because if everybody's just home on their couches with their laptops today, we're going to lose the social skills, the interaction part that we need. I think there's some learning to go on in the military. There's some learning to go on in the private sector, but I think the workforce also will adjust over time to settle into how much remote versus these things are so important to, not just the job, but to human interaction. We got to be face to face for those. Where are you going on recruiting duty? Do you know RS Albuquerque, sir? Albuquerque. All right, awesome. When, when you headed there this summer? Change of command, 7 July, sir. 7 July. Congratulations. Awesome. Most important duty in the Marine Corps recruiting. Get that right. Everything else follows. General, good morning, Vice Admiral Frank Pandoff. As you conclude your tour, can you give us an update on where you are with implementing force design? And how has your thinking evolved as you have implemented it into the fleet? Hey Frank, good to hear from you. We're four years into this and a couple of learning points for me. One, I think we are on the right path. I will not never be happy that we're moving fast enough because the threat is not static and I don't want none of us want a fair fight. So I think till the day I'll leave, I'll be frustrated that we can't move faster because every bit at one inch out in front of the adversary is less casualties is resolution faster. So I'm never going to be happy that we're moving at the right pace. But the direction of force design where we're headed, I think is good. I think because of a lot of great input by majors and lieutenant colonels and colonels over the last three years, we have not just instituted, we have evolved and adjusted the feedback loops so that the learning as we test out things, as we trial things feeds very quickly back into the nerve center of the Marine Corps down in Quantico, Virginia, and we can make adjustments as we go. That was really important because our aim point was a decade out. So there's some unknowns there. There's some assumptions. So I think we would have fallen on our face if we didn't have the closed loop quickly back to this works, do more of that. This did not work. Okay, we learned that. Thanks very much. So I'm very happy with that learning cycle that we're in the iterative process and it's rapid and cuts out a lot of layers and a lot of changes of command it just feeds directly back in really helpful. It's more chaotic the way we're choosing to do it because in this like learn fast, fail fast, however, some people write about it in different terms. It is more chaotic if it would be more controlled if we had an experimental unit, but it would also go slower and it would also be insulated. So we chose to use the world as our laboratory and deploying units as our experimental units. So it's a little harder to harness all of that learning, but it's also happening a lot faster and I'm more comfortable. We are all more confident in the lessons learned because it's actually real units that are doing these things instead of an artificial test unit experimenting with things. Very comfortable with all that. I'm comfortable at the end of four years. We've squeezed everything out of inside the Marine Corps we could and needed to. The only thing I'm never going to be comfortable with is not moving fast enough. Morning, Sir Major John Woloski. About two years ago you co-authored a letter with Air Force General CQ Brown in which you advocated for redefining readiness less in terms of quantifiable numbers of trucks, numbers of planes, and in relation to the enemy. What traction have you gotten on that idea, especially now that General Brown is going to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Yeah. Earlier this week, John, earlier this week was another follow-on article that I co-wrote with a person from OSD who's in the readiness office of the Secretary of Defense. We co-authored a follow-on article and it was published earlier this week. So that should tell you there's traction there. I think there is clear recognition that just counting things, how many of X do I have this afternoon, does not give the Secretary the picture that he needs to make really informed decisions. So there's no naysayers there that, hey, the old system's fine. We don't need to change. We have to get the Secretary the fidelity to make the best decisions possible, especially if he's making decisions on should we do this next week or next month. And if we do, then what's the impact a year or two or three into the future? And the things that we're, if we make this decision, is it the right thing? Is it actually ready or is it just available? So I'm comfortable it's headed in the right direction. The Secretary of Defense's team is calling it Strategic Readiness Framework and they have basically hijacked the tool for measuring that, that the Marine Corps folks in PPO and our operations came up with two years ago. They borrowed that and lifted it up to OSD. So they're using the Marine Corps as sort of, this is not the end solution, but this is the direction we need to go. Because the framework that some really bright people in the Marine Corps had come up with paints a much more holistic impact of decisions on global force management than we have three of them. Let's commit them. We got them to spend, so let's spend them. I think, so I'm comfortable to answer your question that the Secretary of Defense and his team have embraced it. I think all the service chiefs know our current system isn't enough to give the sector the whole picture that he needs to make the best decisions he can. Sir Commander Steve Collins, thank you for your time today. I just read an article recently about Hask discussing the 31 ships and saying Congress knows how many ships we have, we want to have, but then Cape saying something different and possibly removing Cape from the equation. Have you heard any of that and do you have any insight regarding that topic, sir? I have heard that, read the same thing that you read and of course if you're here in Washington, D.C., the news on things like that from Congress travels pretty quickly between the Congress and the Pentagon. My sense is from watching the last couple years and even this week that the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee understands the need for amphibious ships and what the Navy Marine Corps, the Joint Force needs and they wrote it into law last year to make sure that it wasn't buried somewhere. They intentionally wrote into law that the comment on the Marine Corps will identify the requirement for amphibious ships, not anyone else. As far as Cape, I don't know where that goes. I understand what I read. I understand, as always, some people have different opinions and frustrations but that's above my level so I don't worry about that. I just know that they exist right now as a body of people who do analytical work. I think we'll see how it plays out. I really don't know the ins and outs of that although I saw the same thing that you did. Sir, we have one question from the online forum. Yeah. With regard to force design, do you think that some of the communication around it, not the actual changes, has over emphasized the support to see denial against peer adversaries, vice-reminding decision makers and national leadership that the Marine Corps will retain its crisis response capabilities? Much of the public discourse around force design 2030 appears to focus on this idea that it's too focused on a single threat scenario, which is not my impression at all but because the new capabilities are what draws the most attention, the bread and butter crisis response appears to have been lost in this discussion. Yeah. From Jim, I can see the question now. Here's what I'd say. First of all, the basic function, the role of the Marine Corps doesn't change. We are the nation's crisis response force by law and by role, by function, that doesn't change. I would agree with you to some degree that there's some of the discussion, the debate has taken the conversation in different directions, but I think your impression that it's not, we're not a single threat or a single combatant command or a single AO force is exactly right. Force design has in mind what the pacing thread is that the national defense strategy lays out, but it's not a strategy for China. It's not a strategy for Indo-Paycom. It's a strategy that builds a deterrent force able to respond quickly in terms of a time of a crisis and if there's a conflict to fight and win those three things. Can you deter, can you respond to a crisis very quickly and appropriately with the right force and if conflict, if a major conflict comes, can you fight and win? That hasn't changed. Force design for us is how we do those three things and I would agree some of that gets lost in the discussion, but I'm okay with that. It's a lot of debate and a lot of people weighing in with their own opinions, but I stay focused on can we deter, can we respond quickly first? Can we fight and win in a conflict? As long as we maintain where our aim point are, we'll be fine, we'll be fine, but how we do that, that has to change as the environment changes, as the threats change. Yes ma'am. Sir, it's show and I would say- It's show. So I'm, I'd like to ask you how you in your professional development were able to build a series of prompts into your problem solving that accomplished perspective taking in a different kind of analysis as a more senior leader from when you are a more junior leader and if you could help to share some of those prompts that you have found to be helpful in your analysis and framing of a problem. That's a fantastic question. I think up until the part, until the time I went, I was a major and went through command and staff college pretty much the same pretty much traditional conventional way of thinking and approaching problems. What changed for me was the primarily PME, primarily the what I learned from professional military education at both the School of Advanced Warfighting for a year and then a year at Johns Hopkins. Those two years formative for me in terms of how I approach really complex kind of wicked sort of problems. What changed for me is a clearer understanding of not just critical analysis in the way the clause of which would describe it, but critical thinking and the value of do you under first do I understand the problem and then making sure that there you never fall in love with the solutions and you surround, I surround myself with people who do not agree with me. It constantly it causes me to constantly check my assumptions. It brings me back to home base though sort of like the you know the Lincoln book of team of rivals make sure I have found it most helpful to me to not surround myself with people who are like me who think like me but people who have a different perspective have a different background and aren't afraid to challenge the direction that I'm headed because the more senior you are as an admiral or a general the more tendency there is for everyone to get in line behind you and say that sounds great let's go do. So I found not just intellectually I have to I have to surround myself with really intellectually capable people. They also must have whatever it takes to tell that you know the emperor he doesn't have any clothes on that's a different sort of a personality professional but not hesitant to say no I think you've got it completely wrong there's another way to look at the problem. The critical thinking part of me tries to look at and I have an engineering background as a bachelor's degree and I combine those two because the engineering part of the mechanical engineering part of me is practical in other words there are components here we can make it work the critical thinking part of me is never comfortable looking at it through on one plane on one level or from one direction try to look at it on different levels from different angles try to detach try to erase as much of my personal biases as I can move around the other side of the table and say what does it look like from that direction from that level and the more you can mentally do that the more confident I am in the conclusions that we reach. Formative for me is those two years of education I would I am convinced I would not have the tool set that I have without those two years and they were two different years and in a little bit different time frames but for me absolutely formative in how I approach really tough problems really the critical thinking part how do I how do I approach the problem sets at an admiral or a general will and the prompts that I use are the prompts that I spoke of first the people not people like me not people who think like me but people who are willing to challenge me and have a different background and second just the tools that you pick up from advanced schools like SAW or SAMS or SAS and higher level education which the Marine Corps afforded me at a place like Johns Hopkins that causes you to think on a different level and be able to capture it be able to write it down be able to justify it and I'll finish up show I'm trying not to take too long but the battleground that I learned on was in school of advanced war fighting small group everybody studying the same thing on Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday you come in and the instructor just starts picking people at random and you have to defend how you view things and there's 12 other people that are shooting directly at your forehead and that goes on for hours that hardens you because you can't not do the homework and you can't wing it because there's 12 other people who have done theirs so it really prepared me for later on now that's probably a good place for me to pause one more question good morning sir major john claus in us air force so on your theme of people yesterday we had some panelists talking more about the populace one made a point that the civilian populace may not understand maritime strategy with another panelist making the point that that may be true but the american people have a phenomenal judgment overall so it overall helps our national power what's your take on that two level game of the american populace and did that affect force design and maybe some of the roadblocks that were there initially but then overall the buy-in thank you I don't think it's time to panic like push a panic button on the american populace but we should understand that their understanding of things that are happening is fed of course by where they get information from and their understanding of their government and their military is our responsibility if we don't feed that if we don't end and in the right way then they will still form opinions and they may not be informed by fact I I have confidence in the populace also I think they can exercise good judgment if they get good information but of course yeah I mean I you don't need me to tell you they're bombarded right now with everything but accurate information so sorting through that messes are not a neat not not a small challenge I think it's all possible and I think first of all and I know this is very elementary and I'm oversimplifying John but I think it begins with are we teaching are we teaching in middle school and high school do they understand civics do they understand how our government works do they understand that because if the if they don't get that then it's hard later on for them to be an informed populace that can make great judgment calls if they don't understand the machinery they don't understand our constitution so I don't think we should never take for granted we have to focus on the teaching that happens in back way back when where you and I are in middle school and high school because if you get a foundation in civics then you can form an opinion later on as long as you can sort through the facts but in lieu of that's really dangerous they're going to form opinions anyway I I think they don't understand naval strategy no absolutely no I think they expect you and I think they expect the military to protect America I think they don't all understand why we have a military that's overseas if there's no war going on why is that I don't think they understand why Taiwan might be important probably couldn't even pick out Taiwan on a map we have to everybody all every one of our job is an educator you're in my job educate educate does the popular we cannot we cannot expect anything more from the population from the populace than what the then the information they're fed with so I'm a glass half full person I think we're we're fine but I think their base of knowledge is not anywhere near where some people think it is and they're fed bombarded constantly by disinformation and misinformation blah blah blah and sorting through all that stuff not easy at all one more question good afternoon general thank you for your remarks this is commander paul roger is us navy my last assignment I was at six fleet in naples or I had the opportunity to watch then major general donovan stand-ups task force 621 which was also a great pleasure for me in the n2 department because I saw amazing synergy between the marines and the navy working together I'm wondering what's your vision for the maritime forces working together as a single component or as still two components or a mix of the two thank you yeah paul well if you were there you had a front row seat and like you I was watching sort of from the bleachers back here and I know Frank donovan and I'm still amazed at he cut loot he cut people loose he cut small unit leaders loose in Europe to try things to experiment with things that uh you know they aren't in any book in any manual anywhere and he had so much confidence in them that probably in three or four or five months he made more progress for the marine corps than we could have made in 12th because he had he allowed he enabled junior leaders to try thanks and then he supported them the integration of the navy and marine corps absolutely powerful six fleet seventh fleet third fleet the integration as a joint force maritime component commander gif mc powerful to me um the the best combinations that I've seen is where either the navy is the the gif mc commander and the marine is the deputy or vice versa there's you can depends on the scenario but the integration of their two staffs brings gosh every bit of um expertise that you want on a component of in other words a functional component a gif mc staff because you have the the best that a map for division staff brings with it from the marine side the aviation the logistics all that stuff you have the naval part that the navy staff man that you smash them together you have incredible synergy when it works right much more powerful than the two independently so I'm a supporter of all that I'm also a supporter though I would tell you of not dictating from the commandant or cnoc how it should look like because one size does not fit all and we should enable we should uh support the different fleet commanders and f mf commanders and how they see it best fit so I think prescribing one size fits all mistake but worst thing we could do let have confidence that as you saw in Naples or in yukuska that they can solve it in their own way there our job is to resource it and not be prescriptive from the top down that there's a single here's the structure here's the solution set for everywhere around the world let them tailor build it for what they have to do in their region and my job the cno's job support that heck you had a front if you were there for 61 2 you had a front row seat for all that so awesome probably probably had an awesome site picture commandant your presentation today was extraordinary and you've given our audience a lot to think about sir we know that you have another month um in your present role and on behalf of our community here we wanted to express our appreciation to you for your consistent support of the united states naval war college and for all that you have done for the united states marine corps our joint force and the security of our nation thank you oh well we've come to the end of the current strategy forum which for students at the united states naval war college who are graduating on friday gives you a certain lightness about your being today i know many of you have already managed to get your household goods moved some of you are still in process on that task but we hope that the forum today and yesterday have given you an exposure to some current thinking and current research has sparked in you that commitment to continue to access the fora the conferences the symposia that we have here at the naval war college to reach back and continue even as you get your next world all ordered um and build your teams that you'll occasionally reach back whether it's to our youtube channel our podcasts or participating virtually or in person here at the naval war college but you'll remember to access those tools and to prevent any return to the way you had done things before you were exposed to this wide breadth of material and given an opportunity to interact with it and grow vertically during this time so that is my hope for you i do want to before we depart thank our wonderful speakers our moderators and panelists i want to also thank professor mike surelock who did so much to organize this event and to bring the very best interactions possible to the stage here at spruin's auditorium i want to thank our wonderful events team our audio visual team our graphics team our facilities team for making this a really pleasant place to be uh the oak club for supporting us so well as you always do and i want to thank the foundation for being a partner in this wonderful current strategy forum and also uh because you just got to see it really we don't always turn on the full gain and actually get to see this magnificent screen which was a gift from the naval war college foundation general burger was in the room with us and it is really increased the quality of our experience here in spruin's auditorium so i did want to say again thank you to george lang in the back and to the whole naval war college foundation for that generous gift and your support so go safely today we have an award ceremony tomorrow i will see some of you there and i will see the rest of the audience on the stage as you cross through to collect degrees most of you and uh some will continue on and rejoin us in the um at the restart of the term in august um if you are departing please go safely and please access our content we are here and we are a reliable source of information upon which you may make your observations your analysis and draw your conclusions thank you it's been a pleasure