“In our history we teach Marines that the Marine Corps doesn’t change in many ways … we train, we fight, we win, every Marine is a rifleman — it is part of our soul,” Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Troy Black told Marine Corps Times on April 1 in an interview at the Pentagon. “How we do that, there’s got to be forward thinking, and that’s not a new concept.”

On March 24, Black published a memo outlining how the Marine Corps changed during the 20th century from trench fighters to island-hoppers to America’s force in readiness, ready to respond to any crisis around the globe.

For the top enlisted Marine, the new Force Design concepts are simply another evolution for the Corps.

‘Change is necessary’

The modern plan laid out by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger is aimed to better ­prepare the Marine Corps for a fight against China.

Berger argues that the Corps cannot fight a ­near-peer adversary with the tactics, weapons and logistics systems it has spent 20 years during the Global War on Terror developing and refining.

Instead, small forces will need to avoid getting wiped out by large missiles. Those small forces will have to be better trained and better equipped, capable of launching their own large missiles or ­electronic warfare attacks.

Almost all aspects of the Marine Corps — from weapons systems, formations and even how the Marine Corps will recruit and retain the best Marines — will go through some form of change.

Since the outset, the change has drawn criticism from the retired community, but criticism has grown in recent weeks, with multiple opinion pieces being published from notable Marines like retired Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, the former head of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, who retired in 1997.

The cultural pushback should not be a surprise, coming from a service that cherishes and teaches its history better than any other branch in the U.S. military, Black said.

He noted that when former Commandant Gen. Al Gray redesigned the Marine Corps based on maneuver warfare concepts, he too drew criticism.

That was until those concepts were used to completely route the Iraqi military during Operation Desert Storm in 1990, Black said.

The sergeant major acknowledged that combat is the only way to truly test a new design, but added that the Marine Corps is at even greater risk of being too conservative as it prepares to faceoff against China.

“Marines are figuring out that change is necessary,” Black said.

Part of the plan relies on the Corps getting more mature and improving retention. As part of those ­efforts, Black has taken the lead in changing the ­human performance outlook and resources in the Marine Corps in the hopes of improving all ­Marines’ mental, physical and spiritual well-being.

But that may be difficult as the Corps gets ­smaller and reorganizes without giving up most of itsncommitments.

“There are no fewer MEUs than there ever have been,” Black said.

With the closing down of the three special purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces, the Corps has been relieved of a significant manpower burden and is moving closer to a 1-to-3 deploy-to-dwell cycle, he said.

He added that improved retention would allow units to train more efficiently as the bulk of veterans will no longer be replaced by junior Marines every four years.

“If we overtax the force … that is going to have the effect” of reducing retention, he said.

The sergeant major did note that there was a risk that a small Marine Corps eventually will mean a higher operational tempo, which could damage the Corps’ ability to retain troops. But he does not believe that is currently in the cards.

The Corps also is undergoing a small cultural ­rethink of what it means to be in the infantry.

No longer will the entire focus of the Corps be on providing the infantry everything it needs to win a fight. In some future situations infantry will be a supporting unit acting to help enable the movement of naval vessels. With the changing focus, some have speculated the entire ethos of the Corps will move to a defensive posture and the concept that ‘every Marine is a rifleman’ soon will die.

Black understands why someone without insider knowledge could see it that way, but vehemently disagrees.

“The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is taught to every single enlisted and officer,” Black said. “It is to locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and to repel the enemy assault by and close combat.”

“That’s not going to change,” he added.

Enlisted Marines are given a one-time issue of maternity uniforms for free, but officers are required by law to pay for the uniforms out of pocket.

With the average maternity uniform cost at $500, it can be costly to Marine officers looking to have families.

The pilot program will allow pregnant Marine officers in the national capitol region to make an appointment with the Individual Issue Facility at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, to pick up the maternity utility uniform, green tunic, short and long-sleeve service blouses, service maternity skirts and slacks and service tapes, according to a March Marine Corps press release.

Dress blue skirt and slacks will be available in fiscal year 2023, the press release noted.

Marines are required to get command approval before taking part in the pilot program.

Emily Madden, an Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center clothing designer working for Marine Corps Systems Command, said in the release, “The products we identified to go through this program were what would be the most beneficial to pregnant Marines.”

At the facility Marines will have an opportunity to try on the various articles of clothing.

Though they will be issued used uniforms, the facility will ensure that everything is fully serviceable. After a Marine’s pregnancy ends, she will need to return the uniforms to the facility, according to the release.

If the uniform has stains or is worn down enough that it is no longer serviceable it will be retired at no cost to the Marine, the press release said.

Making the Marine Corps more accommodating to Marines who want to start and grow families has been a point of focus of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger.

Since 2019 he has vocally pushed for giving Marines up to a year in parental leave after the birth or adoption of a new child.

Bumping into federal laws that cap parental leave for primary and secondary caregivers, the Marine Corps has sent out administrative messages encouraging Marines and commanders to use regularly issued leave in conjunction with either primary or secondary caregiver leave.

If used to its fullest, Marines who give birth could take up to five months of leave at once, primary caregivers who did not give birth could take up to 3.5 months of leave at once and secondary caregivers could take almost three months of leave at once.

The Marine Corps originally deployed on naval vessels. In the wake of the Vietnam War the self-contained combined arms force known as the Marine Corps Air-Ground Task force developed, ready to deploy anywhere on a moment’s notice. The United States has relied on the consistently deployable and tenacious Marine Corps to fight her battles at the tip of the spear, especially for the past 20 years of land wars in the Middle East.

But those wars have ended, and a new war is on the horizon: China. It’s the biggest threat the commandant has his eyes on. And it’s the proclaimed reason he quickly and drastically has been working to change the Marine Corps.

Some call him a visionary. Some say he is destroying the Corps from within.

Its evolution toward a smaller, dispersed, missile heavy, naval fighting force has caused a number of respected retired Marine generals to strongly ­condemn Berger and where the Corps is going. They say it’s a step in the wrong direction, putting national security at risk and relegating the Corps to an irrelevant support for the Navy.

“We are not a bunch of old guys who simply want to keep around the Corps we served in,” retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper told Marine Corps Times in a March phone interview. “We know it must change to remain relevant.”

These former Marine leaders insist that ongoing structure changes “will not be able to meet the needs of the combatant commanders,” said Van Riper, who ended his career in 1997 heading Marine Corps Combat Development Command. (Read his op-ed, “Jeopardizing National Security: What is happening to our Corps?”)

A group of more than two dozen retired Marines, with a combined 152 years of active duty Marine service, fear completely ditching tanks, and cutting ­artillery, air components and law enforcement battalions might soon spell the end of the Corps as America’s 911 force. And even the end of the Corps itself.

They say they have been petitioning Marine leadership, to no avail. And now they are speaking out publicly, trying to put a halt on a two-year plan that already has been blessed and has begun.

Group members ­include Former Secretary of Defense and retired ­Marine Gen. James Mattis. Former Secretary of the Navy and ­Marine veteran Jim Webb. Former ­Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retired Gen. Joe Dunford.

“I know of no retired four star who supports the commandant,” Van Riper said.

They, like retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who retired in 2002 as commander of U.S. Central Command, see the Corps as stripping away its ability to fight a combined arms battle.

But with a possible war with China looming, others say Berger has been the right leader at the right time.

“We have a commandant who is a visionary,” Col. Jonathan Dunne, the chief of staff for Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told Marine Corps Times at an exclusive Pentagon briefing.

The design

Under Berger’s vision the Corps will be smaller, lighter and more mobile, armed with equipment to allow Marines to sink enemy ships, track submarines and launch cyberwarfare attacks. The plan is for Marines to widely be dispersed across the battlefield, making it difficult for an enemy to locate and destroy them.

The most radical changes, like the newest Marine littoral regiment, will be made to III Marine Expeditionary Force, already forward-deployed in the Pacific, with Marines based in Japan, Hawaii and soon Guam. But effects will be felt throughout the force.

To make his vision a reality, Berger made cuts to beloved Marine weapons systems.

Within one year of announcing plan, titled Force Design 2030, the final Marine Corps tank battalion had closed shop, three infantry battalions were ­preparing to case colors and two of the Corps’ three law enforcement battalions had been deactivated.

“Over time, the scale and scope of the changes, which most of us believed would degrade the ability of the nation to respond to crisis, caused a desire to change the course,” said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg ­Newbold, who retired in 2002.

His last assignment was in the Pentagon as the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The process

Extensive war gaming and analysis has shown the Corps is heading in the right direction, Marine Assistant Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said in February.

But even the top enlisted Marine admits war games are only theoretical until proven on battlefield.

War games are designed to expose flaws and come up with new ideas, Van Riper insists, not design the force.

While the Corps started to take permanent steps almost immediately after Force Design 2030 was announced, the Corps has focused on experimentation and proving the concept in the real world.

“I don’t think the Marine Corps will be terminating our design efforts anytime soon,” Dunne said.

Experimentation has showed signs of where the games got it wrong, Dunne said. For example, the Marine Corps cut too many law enforcement and engineer assets. He says he knows the Corps plans to restore those capabilities but did not give any details on when or how that would take place.

The Marine Corps has been tight-lipped and careful about rolling out details of its vision.

A “small group” designed the basis of Force Design 2030, Dunne said.

Since its nucleus was created, Marine Corps Combat Development has been in contact daily with fleet commanders, other Pentagon branches and combatant commanders, he said.

“A day doesn’t go by where we’re not having hard conversations,” Dunne said.

But hard conversations with stalwart Marines who have shaped the Corps seem to go in one ear and out the other, they say.

Newbold said, “it was apparent that course had been set and counsel was not needed or accepted.”

The commandant “listens politely, he does ask a few questions, he takes notes, but he’s inscrutable,” Van Riper said.

“We had our say … but the commandant is on the path that he is on,” said retired Lt. Gen. Brian Beaudreault, who served as the II Marine ­Expeditionary Force commander from 2019 until his 2021 retirement.

In an exclusive interview at the Pentagon on April 1, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Troy Black, who noted that he was in the Corps when many of these Marines themselves were changing the Corps, balked at the idea that the service isn’t moving in the right direction, also pointing to the fact that there is much classified information others don’t see.

He says he entirely trusts leadership is “tasked and capable” of leading the force rightly.

From Van Riper’s point of view, combatant ­commanders may not ever have been consulted about the design change.

“What the National Security Council, what the combatant commanders, expect Marine Corps units to do in the future, they simply will be unable to do,” Van Riper said.

While Dunne did not know the details of the ­conversations Berger has had with generals in charge of combatant commands, he said the Marine Corps has a made an effort to explain how the new force design will make their job easier.

Money talks

The strongest Force Design 2030 proponents ­acknowledge cuts are difficult but necessary, given the political reality of a military that won’t see significant budget increases in the foreseeable future.

“We’re going to reshape ourselves for the future from within,” Berger had said in 2020.

But is reshaping without vehemently demanding more money the only option?

Beaudreault questioned whether the Corps has pushed Congress and the Biden administration enough.

“Are we making an assumption based on the Marine Corps top line, that we’re only going to have to be able to live within our top line?” the former II MEF commander asked.

Democrats with the majority in both houses of Congress long have talked about cutting defense spending or at least not raising it. But the tide may be changing.

With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, the Marine Corps may have an opportunity to raise its defense budget as the administration takes a harder look at a more aggressive Russia and China.

Biden is seeking a 4% increase in the 2023 defense budget in the wake of the Russian invasion.

But if the budget passes, the Corps still won’t be ­getting assets — like the light amphibious warship it insists is central to its fighting plan — as quickly as it has said is needed.

A gap in transformation is something Van ­Riper has been warning of: the vulnerable time between the Corps being a “powerful forcible-entry force” and the “­specialized anti-ship force of the future.”

Where does that leave America?

Cutting tanks

A Marine Corps without tanks has been one of the most criticized parts of Berger’s plan.

The commandant repeatedly has said that if he had the money, he would have kept tanks — but given the direction of the Corps and financial realities, tanks had to be one of the first things to go.

Tanks have proven to be particularly penetrable on the modern battlefield.

“I would say, if you looked at Armenia and Azerbaijan, or Lebanon, or even right now in Ukraine, pretty clear that top-down sort of missile attacks on the top side of heavy armor, makes it pretty vulnerable,” Berger said in a Washington Post interview in March.

Russian military failure has more to do with issues within it than with tanks’ relevancy, Zinni said.

“You could draw the wrong conclusions from the (Russians) who attack with an armored formation at the wrong time of year and they can’t get off the roads they have no infantry or security for their routes.”

The problem with tanks, Marine reserve officer and military analyst B. A. Friedman argues, goes to ­logistic realities. In recent fights, the Corps has been given the space to build up and deliver its forces in ­relative peace. Logistics lines easily have been maintained, given the U.S.’s overwhelming ­advantages over enemies it faced.

“Russia put a force into combat that they could not logistically sustain, and now they’re paying for it in blood,” Friedman said. “That’s actually why Force Design 2030 is so ­important: because amphibious warships are ­vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, they can’t hang around close enough to shore long enough to get logistically-intense systems like the M1A1 and the M777 ashore and then sustain their fuel and ammunition requirements.”

The Marine Corps must plan for more than just one fight against one opponent, Van Riper insists, and the gutting of tank battalions weakens the ­firepower a Marine expeditionary unit carries.

Think tank expert and retired Marine Col. Dakota Wood says that last point is irrelevant: the four tanks typically shipped on a MEU float were not enough to really change a battle’s outcome.

“What are you going to do with four tanks?” said Wood, a researcher with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. “It is nice to have in ­Somalia, but if you are going to Somalia, you can probably handle it with just about any American unit.”

Enough fire support

The Corps historically has had one cannon battery for every infantry battalion to ensure grunts had the fire support to fight.

Under force design, the Corps only will keep five traditional cannon batteries, with the bulk of artillery dedicated to missile units.

For Dunne the tradeoff is simple: If the goal is to deter a war with China, long-range missiles capable of sinking ships will go much further than more M777 batteries.

While missiles can outrange cannon fire and normally are more accurate and powerful, cannons still can provide quick sustained indirect fire support, at any time of the day, in any weather, better than any other system.

The Marine Corps made an option to cut an asset it did not believe it could sustain in a war where the enemy can successfully attack supply lines.

“The M777 is not surviving long enough on the modern battlefield against a peer to shoot 300–400 rounds at a time,” Friedman said. “It’s simply not.

“So, you get artillery that is more survivable and sustainable, something around a 105 mm cannon that’s self-propelled, so you have that sustained rate of fire in an all-in-one system.”

Beaudreault wishes the Corps would consider ­diversifying cannons — bringing back the 120 mm mortar, a 105 mm howitzer and maybe even an 8-inch howitzer for particularly long-range capabilities.

The Naval strike missile is being looked to by the Corps for the China fight.

Vietnam infantry veteran retired Col. Bing West, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs under President Ronald Reagan, questions how effective it will be at deterring China from invading Taiwan.

Though Marines have experimented with shooting Naval strike missiles off of ships, the plan is to shoot them off land. The closest bit of land to the Taiwan Strait is the small island of Yonaguni, Japan, which would still leave Marines armed with the Naval strike missile out of range of any invading Chinese fleet.

The Marine Corps is testing the missile, but there is no indication it has settled on it. The Corps likely will acquire longer range missiles as the development of Force Design 2030 continues.

Van Riper said that even if the Marine Corps were to develop a missile with the appropriate range, shooting missiles is still better suited to the Army.

As of 2020 the Army had 363 High mobility artillery rocket systems, known as HIMARS. In the Pacific region alone, the Army has four HIMARS battalions, likely outnumbering the Marine Corps missile batteries in the region even after the Corps’ new investment.

Wood acknowledged that the Marine Corps will likely never have more long-range missiles than the other branches.

But the Marine Corps is better suited at slipping inside range of the enemy’s weapons systems, firing the missiles and getting away before the enemy has a chance to respond.

Less aircraft

The reduction in Marine aircraft may make slipping in and out of battle slightly harder.

Force Design 2030 will cut three Osprey squadrons and the CH-53 squadrons, while potentially providing more missions that require the transport aircraft.

“I thought the numbers were getting a little low,” Beaudreault said. “CH-53 squadrons, particularly in the Pacific for logistics, sustainability for expeditionary advanced bases, you’re going to need a bunch of those.”

Fewer planes will be an issue when it comes to close ground support.

Though the Corps is not cutting any fighter attack squadrons, it is reducing the size of squadrons. By 2030, the Marines will have 130 fewer F-35Bs.

In addition to the jet cuts, the Corps is cutting two light attack helicopter squadrons.

To make up for it, the Corps is investing in MQ-9 Reaper drones, in small drones that can be attached to infantry units and in loitering munitions.

While the force may have just enough aircraft to sufficiently support itself, when those units join the joint force for a larger fight non-Marine targets may become priorities, leaving Marine ground units ­without air support, Beaudreault said.

To make up for the loss of aircraft the Marine Corps plans to increase readiness.

“It looks like there is going to be fewer but there is going to be more up at all times,” Maj. Josh Benson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Combat Development Command, said in a phone interview.

There isn’t a guarantee increased readiness will happen, but more maintainers available for fewer aircraft leaves a good chance the Corps can near its goal, Dunne said.

The infantry

Though many retired Marines of stature have concerns about the entire plan, infantry may be at the top.

The original 2030 plan announced infantry battalions to shrink by about 200 Marines. Later developments called for battalions to ditch weapons companies, pushing more heavy weapons down to the platoons and companies and blurring the line between infantry roles.

Eventually there may be a single enlisted infantry military occupational specialty, doing away with specialization in the hopes of creating a more flexible force.

Beaudreault says specialization is important, particularly when it comes to complex systems like mortars.

“We know that 81 mm mortarman need constant training,” Beaudreault said, recalling incidents where untrained mortarmen have injured people when they did not fully understand system. “That’s where I think we were assuming risk inside the infantry that the commandant is comfortable with but I’m not.”

The Corps says one antidote is increasing the length of the school of infantry and teaching new skills. Increasing the maturity and age of the infantry by making staff sergeants squad leaders and gunnery sergeants platoon sergeants also is key.

Smith has said the exact size of the infantry is not yet set in stone.

“We are constantly adjusting the exact size of an infantry battalion, the exact number of missiles a unit needs to carry so that it matches our logistics capability, the exact signature that they will put out,” Smith said.

Van Riper said the Marine Corps has experimented with different infantry battalion sizes in the past but always returned to the pre-force design size of about 900 to 1,000 Marines.

But the role of infantry will change under Berger’s vision. Infantry will support artillery and the ­movement of U.S. ships.

In 2021 this strategy was put to the test with the 12th Marines taking a lead role in an exercise while using infantry as the supporting unit.

“It left a bad taste in my mouth initially,” Gunnery Sgt. Kyle Kimbriel, a platoon sergeant in 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, II MEF’s experimental infantry battalion, said in February. “But now that I understand the bigger picture, I zoomed out of this thing, it makes complete and total sense.”

Whether the strategic goal is to take a city or free up a carrier strike group, a firefight is still a firefight — and the role of Marine infantry is still to close with and destroy the enemy, Kimbriel said.

Too niche

Another criticism of Berger’s plan is that it is too niche and focused on one type of fight with China.

If that fight does not happen, the Corps will be ­designed for the wrong war and could become ­obsolete as a force America depends on.

“I have no argument if Berger said we’re going to split a couple of units to do this sort of thing,” Zinni said. “But to convert the whole Marine Corps to one concept of employment that I think has marginal benefit” puts its future at risk.

A force focused on the most dangerous and ­advanced threat, in this case China, Wood says, easily will be able to adjust to fights and problems posed by lesser forces.

“If the Marine Corps can figure out a way to not only survive, but also be an actual effective fighting force in an inherently maritime environment, like that, facing China, that same sort of force structure … would be working in Ukraine … it would be working on the Arabian Peninsula,” Wood said.

Opening photo by Lance Cpl. Tommy Bellegarde/Marine Corps

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to delete a reference to F-22s, as the Corps does not have F-22s.

“Due to the ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine, Marines are prohibited from travel to Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova,” the Thursday administrative message read.

The message applies to the active duty force, reservists and Marines acting on official orders in addition to those wishing to head to those countries on their own time.

“Effective immediately, all Marines, regardless of parent unit, and all other military personnel attached to Marine units traveling to Europe on official travel (TAD/TDY) or personal leave are required to submit a travel clearance request (TCR) via the Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance System,” the MARADMIN reads.

While Russia has occupied Ukrainian territory since 2014, on Feb. 24 Russia launched a large-scale attack seemingly with the hopes of overthrowing the democratically elected Ukrainian government and conquering the entire nation.

The Ukrainian military blunted the initial invasion and have managed to maintain control of much of the country in the month since large-scale fighting commenced.

But as the war has continued, Russia has increased its shelling of major Ukrainian cities, turning hospitals, theatres and apartment complexes into rubble.

To help bolster his nation’s defense Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on foreigners to join an arm of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Force.

Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Jim Stenger said the MARADMIN was pushed out simply to reinforce a previous State Department travel advisory.

“I know I check MARADMINs more frequently than State Department travel advisories, so this was an attempt to communicate an important message to our Marines and Sailors directly,” Stenger said in an email.

Stenger did not answer whether the MARADMIN was as a result of Zelenskyy’s call for foreign fighters. Nor did he say how many official trips to the three countries were canceled because of the fighting.

While Marines are not banned from travelling to other nations in Europe, those trips will be subject to extra levels of review, according to the MARADMIN.

Since the Russian buildup on the Ukrainian border began, thousands of service members have been sent to Poland to reinforce the U.S.’s commitment to protecting its NATO allies and possibly deter Russia from extending its fight into the rest of Europe.

This policy applies to civilian personnel attached to Marine units heading to Europe on official business, according to the MARADMIN.

Updated maternity uniforms are now rolling out for pregnant Marines.

But the Marine Corps remains the only service branch to not allow ponytails for women in uniforms other than the physical training uniform.

The changes, made official Wednesday in an all-Marine message, were made in an effort to “positively impact diversity, equity, and inclusion,” said 1st Lt. Phillip Parker, a spokesman for Marine Corps Training and Education Command.

Uniform changes

Marines who have apostrophes, accent marks, tildes or hyphens in their last names finally will get to display them on their name tapes, according to the MARADMIN.

But despite the change, the font and size of the nametape will remain the same, so Marines with long or duel last names may still have issues fitting their entire name.

Marines also will be authorized to grow the “bulk of their hair,” up to three inches. The bulk of the hair is defined as how far away from the scalp the hair is when it lays flat.

Previously, Marines were allowed to have hair as long as three inches, but the hair could be no longer than two inches while laying flat. The new rule allows Marines to have their hair be three inches thick while laying flat.

In addition to allowing thicker hair, the Marine Corps will allow men to edge up their hairlines.

“‘Edging up’ undesirable hair that extends beyond or below the natural hairline is authorized (e.g., remove a ‘widow’s peak,’ or remove excessive hair on forehead so it provides a neat line), as long as it provides a neat, professional, and natural appearance,” the MARADMIN reads.

The Marine Corps also allow Marines to wear helmet caps in certain circumstances.

“(Commercial) black, olive drab, MARPAT and coyote helmet caps (also known as helmet caps or helmet liners) may be worn underneath the helmet and may be worn as an outer garment for short periods when the helmet is removed, per the Commander’s discretion,” the MARADMIN reads. “The helmet cap will not be worn in lieu of the MCCUU caps.”

For women the Corps is now allowing more nail polish options while in uniform.

Though it was allowed under the previous order, the new regulation emphasizes that “nude fingernail polish that resembles the wearer’s skin tone and covers the whole nail,” is authorized to wear in the utility uniform.

In addition to the nude and natural colored nail polishes women were allowed to wear in their utilities, ombre style nail polish is now allowed according to the MARADMIN.

Nail polish worn by women in the service or the dress blue uniform are still required to be a shade of red and must “complement the skin tone.”

For pregnant Marines, the Corps is unrolling some updates to the maternity uniform.

The Corps is adopting a better fitting version of the maternity uniform that uses side tabs with the current service uniform maternity tunic and maternity khaki shirt. Additionally, a nursing undershirt that eases access for pumping and nursing is available.

“These updates have been included in this MARADMIN as a supplemental announcement to the force, though they have been available for purchase since March and April of 2021 in Marine Corps Exchanges,” Headquarters Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Sam Stephenson said in a Feb. 22 email.

The Marine Corps “tentatively” expects a maternal dress blue skirt, dress blue slacks and physical training shorts to be available sometime in fiscal year 2023.

Black socks, still no ponytails

Black socks long have been worn by Marines who believed low boot blouses would hide the uniform violation.

But, with the Wednesday MARADMIN, yesterday’s rebels are now well within right to wear black, coyote brown or olive drab socks in utility uniforms.

Marines assigned to the Tactical Training Exercise Control Group stationed at Marine Corps Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, will be given two sets of woodland utility uniforms and one pair of hot weather combat boots with the enlisted uniform allowance.

“Officers are not eligible for supplemental allowances,” the MARADMIN said.

Despite the changes, the Corps remains the only service to ban ponytails in non-physical-training uniforms.

Since 2018, the Navy has allowed women in its ranks to sport ponytails and other hairstyles, while the Army, Air Force, Space Force and Coast Guard all changed hair policies for women in 2021.

But the Corps may change its stance on ponytails soon.

“The Commandant of the Marine Corps, along with senior leadership, are still considering proposals for adjustments to the female hair policy and a decision will be announced via a separate MARADMIN at a later date,” Capt. Ryan Bruce told Marine Corps Times in an email Feb. 17.

The Marines, all with Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261, were Capt. Matthew J. Tomkiewicz, 27, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Capt. Ross A. Reynolds, 27, of Leominster, Massachusetts, Gunnery Sgt. James W. Speedy, 30, of Cambridge, Ohio, and Cpl. Jacob M. Moore, 24, of Catlettsburg, Kentucky.

The Marines were in Norway as part of the large biannual NATO exercise Cold Response.

With Marine Corps assistance, the bodies of the four Marines were able to be recovered and are currently being transported to the United States, according to a Sunday statement from II Marine Expeditionary Force.

They first were reported missing Friday around 6:30 p.m. Central European Time, when they were late for their scheduled landing at Norwegian Air Force Base Bodø, Norway ― north of the Arctic Circle.

Bodø, Norway, was experiencing rain, heavy cloud cover and strong winds with gusts as high as 52 miles per hour when the accident took place, according to AccuWeather.com.

“Yesterday afternoon I was notified that an American aircraft was missing and had not arrived in Bodø according to the original plan,” Norwegian Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, the nation’s chief of defense, said in a statement. “I feared the worst, but hoped for a long time for better news.”

After a long search through worsening weather conditions, Norwegian search and rescue crews were able to identify the crash site from the air. But they were forced to dispatch a ground rescue team to the area because conditions were too dangerous for the air crew to land.

Tomkiewicz joined the Corps in 2015 and was one of the pilots of the downed Osprey, according to the II Marine Expeditionary Force statement.

His decorations included the National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

Reynolds was the other Osprey pilot, who had joined the Corps in 2017.

His decorations included the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, and multiple certificates and letters of appreciation, according to the Marine Corps.

Speedy was an administrative specialist with VMM-261. He shipped to boot camp in 2009.

His decorations included the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with two gold stars, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the Marine Corps Drill Instructor Ribbon, and multiple certificates and letters of appreciation.

Moore was the Osprey’s crew chief. He had enlisted in 2018.

His decorations included the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, according to the statement.

“The pilots and crew were committed to accomplishing their mission and serving a cause greater than themselves,” Maj. Gen. Michael Cederholm, commander of 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, in a letter to his Marines and their families, according to the II MEF statement. “We will continue to execute the mission while keeping these Marines and their service on the forefront of our minds. We will never allow these Marines’ sacrifice to go unnoticed or unappreciated.”

The Marine Corps is investigating the cause of the crash, II MEF said.

It has been a few years since the last tragic accident involving a Marine Corps Osprey.

Three Marines were killed in 2017 when their MV-22B Osprey crashed off Queensland, Australia.

In 2015 one Marine was killed and 21 were injured when a Marine Osprey caught fire after a “hard landing” in Hawaii.

“The police in Nordland County confirmed Saturday morning that the crew of four have died,” a statement from the Norwegian military said.

The Marines, assigned to the 2nd Marine Air Wing, were in Norway as part of the biannual Cold Response exercise.

The Marine Corps has not yet confirmed that the Marines were killed, but has listed them as missing, 1st Lt. Jacob Sugg, a II MEF spokesman told Marine Corps Times.

The Marines were flying the vehicle toward Norwegian Air Force Base Bodø, Norway, north of the Arctic Circle, when initially was reported missing around 6:30 p.m. Central European Time.

“Yesterday afternoon I was notified that an American aircraft was missing and had not arrived in Bodø according to the original plan,” Norwegian Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, the nation’s chief of defense,said in a statement. “I feared the worst, but hoped for a long time for better news.”

Norwegian search and rescue teams scrambled in search of the vehicle, eventually finding it in Gråtådalen, just south of the Norwegian base. But the inclement weather prevented rescue teams from reaching the downed aircraft by air, the defense ministry said on Friday.

“It has now sadly been confirmed that the crew on board the American aircraft died in the accident.” Kristoffersen said. “My thoughts go to the crew’s family, friends and colleagues.”

“Four Marines assigned to 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, II Marine Expeditionary Force are currently listed in Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown,” Sugg said.

“Though the nature of military service is inherently dangerous, the safety of our Marines, Sailors, Allies and partners is our top priority. Our hearts go out to the families affected by these events,” the Marine spokesman said.

The Marine Corps will release the names of the crew 24 hours after the Marine Corps notifies the family members, the spokesman said.

Though the Marine Corps has not named the squadron involved in the accident, images posted Wednesday via the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service show Marine Ospreys with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, operating out of Norwegian Air Force Base Bodø, Norway.

The Marine Corps is investigating the cause of the crash, but early indications suggest the harsh weather of the far northern exercise may have played a role.

Bodø was experiencing rain, heavy cloud cover and strong winds with gusts as high as 52 miles per hour when the accident took place, according to AccuWeather.com.

When not deployed, the squadron is based out of Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.

Three Marines were killed in 2017 when their MV-22B Osprey crashed off Queensland, Australia.

In 2015 one Marine was killed and 21 were injured when a Marine Osprey caught fire after a “hard landing” in Hawaii.

The final deployment as part of Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force – Crisis Response – Central Command, or SPMAGTF-CR-CC, ended in October 2021, Capt. Ryan Bruce, a Marine Corps spokesman, told Marine Corps Times on Friday.

It “will not be replaced by another rotational Marine Air Ground Task Force,” Bruce said.

At its height, the Marine Corps had three congruent special purpose Marine air-ground task forces on crisis response missions to Southern Command, Africa Command and Central Command ― but the Corps’ new focus on a potential fight with China may have killed the crisis response formation.

‘America’s 9-1-1 force’

The formation was first created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack by Islamist extremists on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The roughly 2,000 Marine strong SPMAGTF-CR-CC was composed of Marine ground and air units spread across the Middle East as a do-it-all rapid response force ready to reinforce embassies or launch sorties against Islamic State targets in the region.

The SPMAGTF was called on in 2021 when Marines from 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, were sent from the Central Command deployment to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul amid the U.S. withdrawal and Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

During the deployment, 11 Marines, one Navy Corpsman and one soldier were killed by a suicide bomber. Nine of the Marines who died were part of the SPMAGTF-CR-CC.

Marines from SPMAGTF-CR-CC reinforced the Baghdad embassy in late 2019 after Iraqi protesters supportive of an Iran-backed Shiite militia attempted to storm the compound.

Shortly after deploying to Central Command the Marine Corps sent the new formation to Africa Command and Southern Command with forces tailored for specific regional needs.

Based out of Moron Air Base in Spain, SPMAGTF-CR-Africa Command quietly was shut down in the fall of 2021 Stars and Stripes reported, while budget cuts ended SPMAGTF-CR-Southern Command.

“The realignment of resources and removal of a dedicated rotational force (SPMAGTF-SC) from USSOUTHCOM was based on national and service competing priorities,” Maj. J.A. Hernandez, a Marine Corps spokesman, told Marine Corps Times in June 2021.

The Marine Corps’ budget request for 2022 said the Corps would be able to save $3 million a year by cutting out the deployment, money that could be focused on funding Force Design 2030 and the Corps’ pivot to focusing on China.

The deployment would not be the first asset the Marine Corps scrapped as Commandant Gen. David Berger focuses on divesting from legacy items to reinvest in new weapons and platforms.

In 2021 the Corps scrapped its tank units and started reducing its number of infantry battalions.

“We, all of us, love the things we are getting rid of,” Berger said at the 2020 virtual Modern Day Marine expo held from Quantico, Virginia. “We have to make hard decisions about what we must retain.”

But not all are happy about what the Corps is giving up.

Bing West, a retired Marine colonel who had fought as a grunt in Vietnam and the assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, told Marine Corps Times in a Friday phone call, “I strongly suspect that the Central Command basically said, ‘We want a MAGTF out here.’”

“I can’t imagine that they said, ‘Let’s do away with it,’” West added.

West most recently is the author of “The Last Platoon: A Novel of the Afghanistan War,” which won the 2022 Marine Corps Heritage Foundation fiction award.

A request for comment from Central Command had not been answered at press time.

The Marine Corps still will be able to support Central Command despite ending the deployment, Bruce said.

“Marine Corps forces are still assigned to U.S. Central Command and have and will deploy episodically to meet combatant commander requirements,” Bruce said.

“The United States Marine Corps will continue to deploy around the globe to train and operate alongside our joint and combined partners,” he said.

“Marines will always provide rapid response capability and serve as America’s 9-1-1 force.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated to say that the Marine Corps ended its final Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force – Crisis Response – Central Command deployment in October 2021, not started.

The Osprey was reported missing at 6:26 p.m. Central European Time, roughly 30 minutes after it was scheduled to land, Reuters reported.

“The Osprey was heading north in Nordland on its way to Bodø, where it was scheduled to land just before 6 pm,” a statement from the Norwegian military said. “The aircraft’s last known position was on Saltfjellet.

“We’ve discovered an aircraft that has crashed,” Nordland police chief of staff Bent Eilertsen told Reuters. “We’ve seen no sign of life.”

Bodø, located north of the Arctic Circle, was experiencing rain, heavy cloud cover and strong winds with gusts as high as 52 miles per hour, according to AccuWeather.com.

“The weather conditions in the area are challenging, and it is expected to get worse,” the Norwegian statement said.

An initial U.S. Marine Corps statement confirmed the crash, but did not say whether any service members were missing or injured, nor did it release the name of the unit the Osprey was a part of.

Roughly 3,000 Marines from the II Marine Expeditionary Force, headquartered in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, are in Norway as part of Cold Response, a large biannual NATO training exercise.

Images posted Wednesday via the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service show Marine Ospreys with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, operating out of Norwegian Air Force Base Bodø, Norway.

When not deployed, the squadron is based out of Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.

Norwegian search and rescue teams were searching for the downed Osprey for nearly two hours when it picked up the vehicle’s emergency beacon, Reuters reported.

“We found it after an emergency signal was received,” a Norwegian official with the nation’s Joint Rescue Coordination Centres, told Reuters.

“Because of the bad weather, we cannot get down. Police and rescue services are on their way” by land, the official added.

The Marine Corps is currently conducting an investigation into the cause of the accident, according to a tweet from the official Marine Corps account.

Three Marines were killed in 2017 when their MV-22B Osprey crashed off Queensland, Australia.

In 2015 one Marine was killed and 21 were injured when a Marine Osprey caught fire after a “hard landing” in Hawaii.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

The new 17XX information maneuver occupational field will bring in Marines from psychological operations, civil affairs field into the new occupational field, according to a press release.

The 17XX occupational field originally was created in 2018 and was known as the cyberspace operations occupational field.

The redesignation as the information maneuver field is a sign that the Corps views fights over misinformation and propaganda as existing within the same fight as cyber attacks and defense.

In 2017 the Marine Corps created the first Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group, or MIG, as a unit solely focused on the confluence of information and cyberwarfare.

However, some of the information-focused billets within the Marine information group were held by Marines as a free military occupational specialty. Essentially any Marine with the requisite skills could hold the billet regardless of their primary military occupational specialty.

But the nature of a free military occupational specialty made keeping the right people in the right job difficult.

“Marines gained valuable experience and skills at a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) Information Group (MIG) or at combatant commands only to go back to their previous MOS causing us to repeat the cycle again, never getting Marines with more than three years of experience across information related billets,” Col. Jordan Walzer, the director for information maneuver division within the office of the deputy commandant for information, said in the press release.

“The professionalization of information related MOSs improves retention and readiness by avoiding Marines with valuable skills forced into deciding either to return to their prior MOS or exit the Marine Corps to continue following their passion,” add Walzer, the former II MIG commander.

The change comes with the addition of four primary military occupational specialties.

Marines between the rank of second lieutenant to lieutenant colonel will be eligible to become “influence officers,” while captains through lieutenant colonels would be eligible to become “maritime space officers,” according to the release.

Future administrative messages will detail how officers laterally can move into these new jobs, the release said.

On the enlisted end, Marines ranked sergeant through gunnery sergeant will be able to hold the new influence specialist military occupational specialty, while master sergeants and master gunnery sergeants will become influence chiefs, according to the release.

Marines holding the 0521 psychological operations specialists MOS, the 0531 civil affairs noncommissioned officer MOS and the 0551 information operations MOS automatically will become influence specialists, according to the press release.

To further fill in the ranks, the Marine Corps is planning to conduct roadshows selling the new occupational field to Marines at their home bases, Maj. Audrey Callanan, the new occupational fields manger, said in the release.

The Corps hopes the new occupational field not only will put it in a better standing in terms of information warfare, but help it retain better and more experienced Marines in the field.

“The Information Maneuver OCCFLD provides Marines the opportunity to continue doing what they are passionate about,” said Lt. Gen. Matthew Glavy, deputy commandant for information.

“When you put people first and provide them the opportunity to pursue a career they are passionate about, they give back tenfold to the team and our mission,” he added.