On November 26, 2025, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing announced Maj. Gen. Marcus B. Annibale relieved Lt. Col. Calischaran G. James of his duties as commanding officer of Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 36 (MALS-36) at Camp Foster, Okinawa. The official press release stated the action was taken “due to loss of trust and confidence in his ability to command” and emphasized commanders “are held to the highest standards of conduct and must consistently live above reproach.” Lt. Col. Ryan T. Iden assumed duties as interim commanding officer “until the incoming commander arrives.”
Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron (MALS) 36 provides the “1st Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW) and Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 36 squadrons with task-organized, worldwide deployable aviation logistics material and personnel.”
When the Marine Corps announced that Lt. Col. Calischaran G. James had been relieved “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his ability to command,” it used the same formal language appearing in other verified relief-for-cause decisions across the service. In 2020, Marine Forces Europe and Africa announced Maj. Gen. Stephen Neary had been relieved “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his ability to serve in command,” which the command published in its official statement.
The phrase signals a serious determination by senior leaders that a commander no longer meets required leadership standards. It does not specify the underlying conduct, because the Marine Corps generally withholds those details to protect due process and ongoing administrative or investigative processes.
What “Loss of Trust and Confidence” Means
Relieving a commander for “loss of trust and confidence” has become a standard formula across the services when higher headquarters decides that an officer can no longer be trusted to lead a unit. Other examples include the relief of a Marine battalion commander in the 1st Marine Division, where the division stated that he had been removed for “loss of trust and confidence in his ability to continue to serve in that position,” and the relief of the Marine Corps’ Wounded Warrior Regiment commander for a loss of “trust and confidence in his ability to lead.”
These public statements show how the phrase functions. It covers a spectrum of underlying issues, from serious misconduct to persistent leadership failure. It does not always mean criminal behavior, and it does not automatically imply a toxic command climate, but it does mean the senior commander no longer believes the officer can carry out command responsibilities.
How Marine Leadership Doctrine Frames Command and Responsibility
Marine leadership publications do not give a neat legal definition of “loss of confidence,” but they do describe the standard that command is meant to reflect. The leadership manual “Leading Marines” describes command as a sacred responsibility, and a moral and professional relationship, not just a billet. In its introduction, it explains Marine Corps leadership rests on “the relationship between the leader and the led and the leadership traits and principles taught to every Marine” and ties leadership directly to “morale, discipline, and courage.”
The same publication stresses leading Marines is the most important responsibility in the Corps and that Marines are expected to “lead by example” and embody core values such as honor, courage, and commitment in daily decisions, not only in combat. Commanders who fail to uphold those expectations can be removed for cause even when no UCMJ charge is brought. Relief is an administrative action, but it reflects a judgment the commander no longer embodies the example and judgment the institution expects.
The Berger “Soft Relief” Guidance and Accountability
The modern conversation about relief-for-cause inside the Marine Corps was shaped by a 2020 white letter from then-Commandant Gen. David Berger. Writing to Marine leaders about the practice of quiet or “soft reliefs,” he stated “any Marine relieved for cause or reassigned based on loss of confidence in ability to perform assigned tasks shall receive an adverse fitness report” and warned that “the practice of ‘soft relief’ for wrongdoing or poor performance is not authorized.”
In the same vein, Berger wrote in his planning guidance that “when we fail to hold the standard, we establish new lower standards” and that elite organizations “do not look the other way when teammates come up short of expectations.”
Those statements matter for understanding the MALS-36 relief. They show that, at least in doctrine and guidance, the Marine Corps sees relief for cause as a tool of accountability, not as a cosmetic reshuffle. When a commander is relieved, the Commandant expects a real record and a clear link to standards.
Why This Matters for MALS-36 and Its Marines
Aviation logistics units like MALS-36 are essential. They control maintenance lines, spare parts, ordnance handling, and technical readiness for aircraft that support operations across the region. A breakdown in command, whether in ethics, climate, or performance, can quickly affect safety and readiness. That is why the Marine Corps tends to move fast when it decides a logistics commander no longer has its full confidence.
The appointment of Lt. Col. Iden as interim commander is a standard move reflecting the need for continuity. In other recent reliefs, interim leaders have stepped in immediately to steady units and maintain operations while the service works through assignments and any ongoing investigations.
For Marines on the ground, the message is usually simple even if the details are not shared. Command is a privilege that depends on continued trust. When that trust is gone, the institution will replace the commander to protect the unit.
Leadership and Accountability in a Demanding Environment
The relief of the MALS-36 commanding officer fits a larger pattern in which the Marine Corps uses relief-for-cause as a blunt but clear tool to enforce leadership standards. It is disruptive and often opaque to those outside the chain of command, yet it reflects a belief that the Corps must protect its values and its Marines even at the cost of individual careers. In the Indo-Pacific, where operational demands, political scrutiny, and alliance commitments all converge, trust in leadership becomes even more important.
Story Continues
Read the full article here