OPINION:

The U.S. Marine Corps‘ transformation plan has faced resistance not only from within the military but also from Congress, including former members.

But in his recent op-ed on the topic (“Congress must save Marine Corps: Gen. Berger’s direction shift dangerous for our security,” web, May 31), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fails to provide substantial evidence to support his claims, relying instead on opinion and emotional language.

The argument that the Marine Corps‘ focus on developing missile units to counter Chinese warships is a “stunningly stupid investment” lacks a comprehensive analysis of the evolving security challenges, including in the Indo-Pacic region. Gen. David H. Berger’s predecessor, Gen. Robert Neller, acknowledged in 2017 that the Marine Corps was not adequately prepared to face peer adversaries in the future. He emphasized the importance of adapting to the evolving battlefield, which would involve addressing electronic warfare, precision weapons and cyberattacks.

The Marine Corps‘ decision to reduce or eliminate certain capabilities, such as heavy tanks, is based on the recognition that these capabilities are already available elsewhere in the joint-force inventory. To his credit, Gen. Berger worked within his budget to plan the reorganization instead of simply asking for billions more in tax dollars.

It is not accurate to claim that the Marine Corps‘ transformation was conducted without consultation or consideration. Such decisions are made through a deliberative process that involves extensive analysis, simulations and consultations within the military establishment. The initiatives included in the Force Design 2030 plan are the result of extensive evaluation conducted over several years, predating Gen. Berger’s tenure as commandant.