The Marine Corps Today

Immediate and Persistent Combat Power
Interview With Gen. James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps

Senior Editor Gordon I. Peterson interviewed General Jones for this issue of Sea Power.

Sea Power: General, your time as commandant of the Marine Corps [CMC] is fast drawing to a close. What thoughts cross your mind as you reflect on your tour?

JONES: The last three and one-half years have certainly been the most fulfilling experience in my professional life, and I am very proud of all of the many things that the Navy and Marine Corps team has been able to do. I also am very proud of what the Marine Corps has achieved. I said at the outset that I took a Marine Corps from our 31st commandant [retired Gen. Charles C. Krulak] that was in very good shape. My goal was to make it better. The guidance I gave to commanders emphasized that the responsibility of command is to leave the Corps at least slightly better than you found it so that your successor can go on to make it even better.

I did not have a grandiose vision, but I think it was a good one. I tried to capture my thoughts in my original Commandant's Guidance that was published the day after the change of command in July 1999.

What were the key areas of emphasis in your Guidance?

JONES: I wanted to highlight some of our values--the fact that readiness is important but it is not a function of just the individual Marine and his rifle anymore; it is the Marine, his rifle, and his family. The All Volunteer Force is a different animal than a conscripted force. There were things that we critically needed to do on our bases and stations to improve the quality of life and service of our Marines by providing modern barracks, family housing, and other facilities.

I also wanted to signal that there were some areas where we needed to rededicate ourselves to improving our warfighting capabilities, our contributions to homeland defense, and our relationship with the Navy.

The enduring partnership between the Navy and Marine Corps is one of the most important factors in our ability to achieve operational excellence and victory on the battlefield--our reason for being. My relationship with Jay Johnson [former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay L. Johnson] and Vern Clark [the current chief of naval operations, Adm. Vern Clark] was not only a strong personal relationship but it also allowed us to move our two forces into a position where we can honestly say that the 21st century's naval force will be something that will make the nation very proud.

The Navy-Marine Corps team was heavily committed to combat operations in Afghanistan during phase one of the war on terrorism. What impressed you most about the Marine Corps' warfighting performance?

JONES: The role of the Navy and Marine Corps during Operation Enduring Freedom was a demonstration of what is to come in the future. It is very exciting, because much of what we achieved was accomplished with legacy systems and platforms--especially older aircraft and helicopters. Operation Enduring Freedom was the most tangible demonstration to date of what we are talking about when we say farewell to the "amphibious" designation of Marine Corps capabilities in the 21st century and describe ourselves as a true expeditionary force.

Everything that the Navy and Marine Corps are doing is merging toward that concept--expeditionary forces projected over a great distance from a sea base. For the Navy and Marine Corps the definition of expeditionary means a couple of things. One, it means forces that are immediately usable upon arrival. Two, it also means having a degree of sustainability upon arrival. Immediate, persistent combat power and long-term supportability are characteristics of the Navy-Marine Corps team's flexibility that are almost unique among the armed forces of the world.

Sovereignty issues are going to dominate the 21st century in ways that we have never seen. It is going to be very difficult to negotiate access ashore or for airspace overland. Our maritime nation's history allows us to do 21st-century sea-basing missions in new and exciting ways. Forces that come from the sea will be exponentially more valuable than they have been at perhaps any time in our history.

What key lessons did the Marine Corps learn--or relearn--during the past year's combat operations, and were you surprised by any developments?

JONES: Transformation for us is an important word, because it has four distinct pillars to it--operational concepts, technological innovation, institutional reforms, and reform of our acquisition and business models. The first two components of transformation really do apply to our performance in Afghanistan--the transformation of operational concepts and our technology.

When General Mattis [Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis] went into Afghanistan with a MEB [Marine expeditionary brigade] headquarters as a Fifth Fleet task force commander, he had roughly 60 people with him. Twenty years ago a MEB headquarters may have had 260 people assigned. Much of the intelligence that he received--in real time--was generated at Quantico [Va.]. Much of the logistical support he needed was generated with reach-back capability to Navy ships operating in the Arabian Sea.

Because of our advances in technology and the information that he was able to obtain about his local combat environment, he did not need to take many of the things that another commander would have taken with him as recently as 10 years ago. He was able to lighten his force and still be very effective, survivable, and poised to accomplish any mission.

This shaping characteristic is something that we would not have done 10 or 15 years ago, but this capability today was based on an absolute certainty that he would have an accurate battlefield awareness at all times. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles and the immediate integration of capabilities between Special Operations Forces [SOF] and Navy-Marine Corps forces associated with his brigade were transformational in terms of his efficiency and effectiveness.

Afghanistan proved to be a validation of concepts that are to come with the future increased use of technology and the replacement of aging systems like our legacy helicopters with tiltrotor aircraft. We will obviate the need for interim staging bases, forward arming and refueling sites, and facilities of that nature. We will truly be able to accomplish missions like [those in] Afghanistan without breaking a sweat. It is harder to do now owing to the technological limits of today's aircraft, but it was exciting to see it all unfold despite these limitations.

Did anything surprise you?

JONES: Whatever surprises I had were, for the most part, pleasant ones! Although our training is conducted in parallel, it was pleasant to see how well our Marines and joint SOF units worked together. I also was pleasantly surprised to see how well our communications worked and to see the effectiveness of close-air support--with many precision munitions dropped from [Air Force] B-52s. Many things were revalidated. There is always a tendency to lighten the logistical footprint of the Marine Expeditionary Unit [MEU], for example, but during mass-casualty evacuations, POW [prisoner of war] detention and medical treatment, battle-damaged aircraft retrieval, and combat search and rescue we saw the value of the MEU's organic combat and logistical capabilities. Our experience demonstrated that we are moving in the right direction in terms of our transformation.

Some observers have said that the Marine Corps held the SOF community at arm's length for many years. Is that relationship changing?

JONES: I am very excited about our work to establish closer working relationships with the joint U.S. Special Operations Command [SOCOM]. It is an idea whose time has come. We are fortunate to have a commander in chief [CINC] at JSOC, General Charlie Holland [Air Force Gen. Charles R. Holland], who feels the same way. Several months ago we initialed the first memorandum of understanding between the Marine Corps and the Special Operations Command to start building the bridges that will bring our forces closer together.

Special Operations Forces--and forces like them--are going to be at a premium during the global war on terrorism. We already have a great deal of capability residing in our MEU (SOC) [MEU (Special Operations Capable)], so this is a natural marriage. The Navy-Marine Corps team has floating sea bases and platforms, and we are moving into aggressive technologies like the tiltrotor aircraft. The fact that Special Operations Forces also are champions of that technology is not accidental. We both see the future the same way, and I am grateful to General Holland for entering into this dialogue.

Our bridge-building will not be done overnight. I have assigned one of our new brigadier general-selects, Denny Hejlik [Brig. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik] to SOCOM as its chief of staff--a first. We will do this gradually, and we will do it the right way. We will have a complementary capability.

Do you see a time when Marine SOF units or personnel will be integrated into the JSOC structure in the same manner we see with the Navy's SEAL [Sea, Air, Land] SOF community?

JONES: I would not rule anything off or on the table right now. Personally I would think that would be a possible end state--possibly a contribution in the area of force recon [reconnaissance]. [Ed. Note: Subsequent to this interview, the Marine Corps and SOCOM agreed to a Marine Corps contribution in fiscal year 2004 as a "proof of concept" of this emerging relationship. The force, of about 75 Marines, will augment Navy Special Warfare units assigned to SOCOM.] I know we can add exponential capabilities to the JSOC organization--which is going to be tasked a great deal during the years ahead. A great deal of good will flow from what we are doing in this area.

British Royal Marines also were present during combat operations in Afghanistan; would you care to comment on your service's special relationship with them?

JONES: That's a really good question. We have a strong affinity for the Royal Marines of Great Britain, and they have performed superbly in Afghanistan. We have had a special relationship for many years with our British friends. We continue to assign junior officers to the Royal Marines. We also have exchanged pilots in Marine aviation--we adapted our AV-8B Harrier II [short takeoff/vertical landing jet aircraft] from the original British design. The STOVL [short takeoff/vertical landing] Joint Strike Fighter [JSF], along with tiltrotor technology, also makes great sense for forces that want to go somewhere fast and do something immediately upon arrival.

I would like to expand on the question. We are building a worldwide community of naval infantry forces. This past summer I hosted the first-ever worldwide conference of naval infantry--32 countries sent representatives to be with us for a week. We took them to Camp Lejeune [N.C.] to demonstrate a combat-capabilities exercise, to Parris Island [Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.] to show how we make Marines, and here to Washington, D.C., for the final days of the conference. It was extraordinary to see the commonality between naval infantries from around the world--whether they are large or small. We did not make any distinction--the only criterion was that the country have a naval infantry. It could be a riverine force or oceangoing force; it did not matter.

As the nation's medium-weight expeditionary sea-based force, how does the Marine Corps bridge the gap between SOF operational capabilities and the Army's larger ground forces?

JONES: One of the healthier debates going on inside the Pentagon today is an examination by the service chiefs and the services over how much speed the nation's armed forces need when responding to a developing crisis. While we talk a great deal about transformation, there are some things that we must guard against. One of the caution flags that I would throw out is that the nation does not need the entire Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to be first responders to a crisis or contingency! My good friend the vice chairman [Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said more than a year ago what I have repeated many times because he is absolutely right: Speed is expensive!

It is clear that we need some speed, but we will never have the strategic lift--either air or sea--to lift the entire Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps simultaneously. There is not a requirement for everyone to be at the point of crisis at the same time. It is not affordable or achievable.

What we can do is define how we shape our forces so that we have a certain degree of sufficiency across the spectrum of expeditionary forces and truly deployable forces. That is a subtle distinction, but it does purport to recognize that we can identify those forces that are the first responders--the most agile and the most usable crisis-response forces that can react quickly and do something of military significance to resolve the crisis at hand or prepare the way for follow-on forces.

If a conflict deepens or widens into low- or high-intensity combat, those follow-on forces need to be robust. There is no walking away from that. It is good to continue to work on developing increased agility--absolutely--but we also must be careful not to sacrifice true combat power in favor of speed. Getting there too light to fight and prevail is a formula for disaster.

This perspective also implies that there are varying degrees of readiness that also are possible to embrace. If you agree with my initial thesis, there is not a requirement for all units of the armed forces of the United States to be at C1 [the highest level of operational readiness in the military's tiered structure of readiness reporting] all the time. There are huge budget implications. It is not popular to talk about tiered readiness, because nobody wants to be in the tier that is not fully ready.

The truth of the matter is that we do that. I challenge anyone to tell me that we don't--even in the Marine Corps. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are trying to come to grips with how much speed the nation needs for its military and what those forces ought to look like. There is enough work there for everybody!

Sea Power 21, the new Navy vision introduced by the chief of naval operations [CNO] earlier this year, has profound implications for the Marine Corps. I would like to pose the same question we asked Admiral Clark last month--is the Marine Corps joined at the hip with the Navy regarding the future of naval operations during the 21st century?

JONES: The short answer is yes, but I can't let your question pass with a one-word answer. Not only is the Marine Corps joined at the hip with the Navy in this concept, we are joined at the hip in ways that we have never seen before during my career. It is not just at the CNO-CMC level; it also is at the operational level and headquarters level. Everything that the Navy and the Marine Corps are doing is being done in concert with one another.

Tactical-aviation [TACAIR] integration is perhaps one of the best examples of that type of cooperation. When you try to build bridges between two cultures you often find a great deal of resistance. I understand that. The CNO and I spend a lot of our time building consensus.

TACAIR integration was the first test of sincerity. Cooperation often lasts until you reach the first contentious issue in a win-lose relationship--you either get your way or you walk away from it. If you stick with it and build something better to create a win-win relationship--which is what we have done with TACAIR--then you advance the transformation of our naval forces. It is truly powerful. In addition to making things better for the Marine side of naval aviation, it also brings the Navy into its first true commitment to support the land battle from a sea-based platform since World War II or Korea. The end of the blue-water threat does not mean that the Navy is less important. In my book, it means the Navy can focus on prosecuting the nation's interest from a sea base for the foreseeable future. Land-sovereignty issues are going to make this naval capability exponentially more valuable.

Our efforts to write a naval operational concept takes the cornerstones of Navy and Marine Corps doctrinal documents and fuses them together so that people can understand how the nation's naval forces can be employed and how we intend to move forward over the next 10 to 15 years. I want to underscore that the Marine Corps is joined at the hip with the Navy--and in ways that we could only dream about just a few years ago.

Could you elaborate on the rationale for the integration of naval aviation and where it stands today?

JONES: It is not a new concept. We started some years ago when we agreed to put four squadrons of Marine F/A-18s [Hornet strike-fighters] on Navy aircraft carriers. The paradigm is not new, but we have agreed to expand on that. This expansion entails some real cultural changes that will commit the Navy and the Marine Corps to do things in a naval context. We have agreed to expand the presence of Marine squadrons to 10 carrier battle groups--the 10 Nimitz-class big-deck carriers. The Navy also has agreed to dedicate three of its squadrons to our unit-deployment program.

Will the future capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] play a role in this?

JONES: Yes. By looking at the Joint Strike Fighter in toto, from a naval concept, the STOVL [short takeoff/vertical landing] and conventional variants will receive a fair, impartial, and objective evaluation. We have always had a division of labor, if you will, with the Marines pushing STOVL capabilities and the Navy wanting to preserve CTOL [conventional takeoff and landing] capabilities. We all are excited by the promise of the Joint Strike Fighter and what it is going to do, but I honestly believe that the mix of those airplanes will be dependent upon a true examination of the variants' capabilities.

We will see where this examination will come out. At the very minimum there will be a healthy mix of both aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps. If both aircraft pan out the way we think they will--and if the CNO's visions of a littoral combat ship and revamped Expeditionary Strike Groups come to pass--then I think you will see more naval capability with diverse power-projection capabilities--from tiltrotors, to STOVL Joint Strike Fighters, to other exciting technologies--coming into the naval arsenal in the near future.

TACAIR integration may allow us to reduce the overall number of Joint Strike Fighters that we were scheduled to buy over the program's life cycle, because we had planned to buy as separate services. Now, by marrying the complementary capabilities of both models and changing a bit of our culture to accommodate that capability, we might be able to reduce the total buy but do more with what we have. Those studies will need to determine what it is as we go down the road, but that's the concept.

Admiral Clark told us that he is totally committed to the STOVL variant of the JSF and, depending upon the results of the comparative evaluation, it may not be just Marine Corps pilots who will fly it.

JONES: Absolutely. I have never seen a lack of commitment to the STOVL JSF by the CNO. I can assure you that we have never had a conversation in which we disagreed on anything relating to TACAIR.

The Marine Corps pioneered innovative doctrines and warfighting capabilities many decades before the term "transformation" became fashionable in the Department of Defense. What are the most promising transformational capabilities on the Marine Corps' horizon?

JONES: I would have to start with that sector in the Marine Corps most in need of modernization--aviation. The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter is at the top of our list, co-equal with tiltrotor technology. You will notice that I am not necessarily referring to the V-22. I believe that the promise of technology is what is transformational. If the "box" [i.e., airframe] that we design for that technology is a V-22, that's fine. I'm optimistic that the V-22 will prove itself. But I see tiltrotor technology as transformation because it is a step beyond the limits of the physics applied to rotary-wing aircraft. We are not going to be able to get much more speed out of helicopters.

If the V-22 proves itself, then that is the way to step into tiltrotor designs. I will be happy, because I think it will lead the way to smaller tiltrotor aircraft for command-and-control and gunship missions, with the larger models suitable for intratheater lift requirements now performed by the C-130 [Hercules transport aircraft]. Imagine landing a C-130-type aircraft vertically on the fantail of an LPD [amphibious transport dock], for example. I think that is the future. Tiltrotor technology also has numerous commercial applications. If you think that V/STOL [vertical/short takeoff and landing] fighter aircraft are transformational, then you also must apply that logic to tiltrotor aircraft.

On the sea-basing side of transformation, the AAAV [advanced amphibious assault vehicle] remains a very, very important program. It is a critical vehicle for us--not only in ship-to-shore operations, but also in the prosecution of a land campaign--ship-to-objective operations. The AAAV's gun system, maneuverability, speed, and reliability will make it a much different animal on the ground. Its speed across the beach will really make a difference.

To those who think that this is a step backward--that the Marine Corps is still planning for an amphibious assault comparable to Iwo Jima during World War II--that is not the case. When Marines come from a sea base, particularly in a hostile environment, our methodology is not to land in the face of the enemy, but land where they are not, so that we can build up our forces, move across the shore as quickly as possible, and come at our enemy in an asymmetric manner.

We want to present the enemy with so many different threats to his well-being that he does not know how to react to any of them. When you project power from a sea base with a capability to come across the beach with high-speed LCACs [landing craft, air cushion], the AAAV is complementary. You do not want to limit the buildup of forces ashore to one mode only. Things will happen in combat that can preclude a planned option. The AAAV is not a means of delivery that stops at the beach. It is a means to cross the beach and proceed inland at a very high speed. AAAVs could be more than 100 miles inland on the first day of operation without too much difficulty.

What are some of your other high-priority aviation recapitalization requirements?

JONES: The KC-130J [Hercules aircraft equipped with an improved aerial-refueling system] is an important addition to our aviation forces. The most enabling platform for deliverability and sustainability that allowed Marines to do what they did in Afghanistan was the venerable C-130 aircraft. If we had not had them organically assigned as part of our force, it would have been a showstopper. Right behind the C-130, the performance of the CH-53E helicopter as a heavy lifter was absolutely paramount to our ability to accomplish our mission. Without those two platforms being organically assigned to the Marine Corps, we would not have been able to respond with the speed and cohesion that we demonstrated.

We are trying to create more capability out of our UH-1s and AH-1s, the Huey and Cobra helicopters with a four-bladed [rotor system] program. They have been exciting to watch. We are getting tremendous performance indicators out of both of those aircraft.

Lastly, in the unresolved column, is the issue of what we will do to modernize our electronic-warfare capability--the EA-6B [Prowler]. This is a "work in progress." Among the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, we need to sort out who does what, and what does the box look like?

Shortfalls in amphibious lift and naval-fires support have been the long poles in the tent for naval expeditionary-warfare capabilities for many years. Is enough being done to improve capabilities in these areas?

JONES: One of the key points regarding amphibious lift that demonstrates how the Navy and Marines are joined at the hip across the board is the fact that the CNO's articulation of requirements often cites the need for an LHD 9 and a subsequent LHA-R, the replacement for the LHA, and the LPD 17 [San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock] as his top priorities. I am very satisfied with our emphasis on modernizing our amphibious ships. We have no daylight between us on this issue. Like the CNO, I believe the nation needs more of their capabilities, not less.

Naval-fires capability is a problem. I can't say that anyone in the Navy or Marine Corps is satisfied with the progress that we have made. Whether improved systems are for now limited by technology, commitment, or funding, we are not where we need to be today. It needs more attention--especially long-range precision fires. Both the Navy and Marine Corps want to see better work in this area--and more quickly, but during my time in office this area has not come along as rapidly as many other programs.

Without getting into the details of the administration's 2004 budget request, will it continue to improve quality of service, current readiness, and recapitalization programs?

JONES: Very much so. We are enjoying the best readiness investments that I have seen in more than two decades. Regarding quality-of-life issues, one of the best transformational initiatives I have seen has been the successful implementation of public-private ventures to recapitalize base housing for Marines. By 2007, we will have either modernized or rebuilt half of the housing units in the Marine Corps. They will be quality homes built and maintained by reputable builders that will make everyone proud. Marines have reacted phenomenally when they see the benefit of this type of housing. I have never seen anything like it in my 35 years as a Marine. It is the best thing we have ever done for the Marine Corps family.

Are you seeing a return on the investment that the Marine Corps, the Bush administration, and the Congress are placing in the quality of service for Marines and their families--in retention, for example?

JONES: We do. We have an All Volunteer Force, so it means that, at some point in their lives, every Marine wanted to be here. For people who decide to reenlist or extend, we have a special community we need to focus on. Statistically, the Marine Corps is a bit different from our sister services--68 percent of all Marines are always on their first enlistment. That is a tremendous turnover. We need to recruit almost 40,000 Marines every year; this sees us return a high number of high-quality citizens back to our cities and towns. We need to focus on the 32 percent of our force who have career aspirations, and we target them. Our first-term and, more importantly, second-term attrition reflects that emphasis. People are seeing what is happening and appreciate it. Our exit rate for the career force is slowing to a trickle.

You will soon report to familiar territory overseas to perform dual-hatted responsibilities as NATO's supreme allied commander Europe and the commander in chief of the U.S. European Command [EUCOM]--the first Marine to serve in this position. What awaits you?

JONES: My outlook is one of anticipation and great interest. I never anticipated being asked to serve in these capacities. I was raised in Europe for nearly 15 years from the age of three onward, and I served at EUCOM from 1992 to 1994. The NATO Alliance is still the world's most important military alliance. The president and the secretary of defense have asked me to lend a hand there. I am honored to do that.

What can you tell our readers about Lt. Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine nominated to relieve you and serve as the 33rd commandant?

JONES: He is a great selection! General Hagee is widely known inside and outside of the Marine Corps as a thoughtful leader, someone who has been tested in all different walks of professional life--here in Washington and in the field. He commands the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force now and is a combat veteran, so I believe that he and Silke [Mrs. Hagee] will bring dynamic leadership to the Marine Corps. We should all celebrate the excellent judgment that the president and secretary of defense showed in asking them to step forward to assume this very important responsibility.

The mark of the man is that I heard about him many years before I ever knew him--and always in glowing terms. When I did get to know him I learned that all of the good things I had heard about him were understated.

He really is a remarkable Marine. Diana [Mrs. Jones] and I look forward to helping him and Silke transition to this wonderful job in a seamless way.

What are the greatest challenges General Hagee will face?

JONES: He will see many of the same challenges that I would face if I were going to continue on as commandant. We must continue to make the case for modernization and transformation. We need to continue to build bridges with the special-operations community. We must make sure that the current harmony between the Navy and the Marine Corps continues to be developed so that the word naval is a unifying word. That requires considerable attention if we are to have a culture reflecting the support of the rank and file and not just temporary obedience to the will of either the 32nd or the 33rd commandant.

It will be important to continue to build relationships abroad--with other marine corps and navies of the world--to allow access to training areas and to cultivate military-to-military relationships that are important to a nation of great influence like the United States.

There is no question of the need to continue to make the case "inside the Beltway" that the right level of investment in the armed forces of the United States is approximately three-and-a-half to four percent of our nation's gross domestic product. It is incumbent on the service chiefs to continue to explain to the American people what they obtain for that level of investment--something that is not always clear.

My view of what a service chief does is very simple: You are responsible for leading your service. In this day and age that means not only leading the service, but also shaping it so that it can be usable to the joint force. That function has a completely different set of metrics to it than it did 20 years ago. The second thing a service chief must do is to be able to fight the "Battle of Washington!" It is another high-risk battlefield, but one that it is very important to the viability and survivability of our forces when you make the case for what it is that you do--to your civilian leadership here in the Pentagon, to the elected leadership on Capitol Hill, or to the media.

From my standpoint it would be ideal to have a stable level of investment in the country's national-security requirements. I see what the armed forces do all over the world to be the first enabling element for the blessings of democracy that we sometimes take for granted: a powerful and robust economy, an expanding culture, and the basic freedoms we enjoy. Our armed forces teach the values of a democratic society by example everywhere they go--particularly the importance of the subordination of military to civilian leadership. General Hagee will have his hands full, I am sure, but he will do a great job!

As you prepare to report for duty in Europe, what message do you have for the men and women of the Marine Corps?

JONES: As I come to a close of my tour as the 32nd commandant, I want Marines to know that they can be very proud of what they are doing. They have great relevance to whatever the nation does on the globe's surface--from peacekeeping operations to potential combat. They, along with our Navy, Air Force, Army, and Coast Guard partners, add significantly to the wide range of options available to our commander in chief--and they do it spectacularly well. I have never had a bad day in office. I have had some sad days.

If there is any regret, it is that we still have not turned the corner on an effective implementation of a safety program that reaches way down into our very young force. We train our Marines to believe that they are indestructible. Unfortunately, too many of them get out on the nation's highways and act like they really are. We will do better. We have the right program in place--2001 was our best year for aviation safety in the history of Marine Corps aviation, but we regressed in 2002. Safety problems are not something that generals are going to solve--it will be second lieutenants and staff sergeants. Once they become convinced that this must be done, the system will work.

I leave office with the highest degree of satisfaction and great pride in what the Marine Corps is today--I am extraordinarily proud of who we are as a service and what we do. Marines feel that way themselves, and that is the sign of a healthy organization.

In closing, and on behalf of the Navy League, we wish you every continued success in your new assignment. Is there anything else that you would like to say to the readers of Sea Power?

JONES: The Navy League is very important to the Marine Corps and to our ability to articulate our message on a consistent basis. Sea Power magazine is one way to do that. It is a magazine that I certainly look forward to reading, and I would encourage any serious student of what we do--in the Navy or Marine Corps--to read it to stay current. It goes beyond the services. National security should be everyone's business, and Sea Power goes a long way toward answering many of the questions that people have on their minds. I am grateful to the Navy League and the magazine for your thoughtful courtesies toward me during my three and one-half years in office. I hope that if the spirit moves you Sea Power will come to see me overseas! *