Disband the Marine Corps?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by mforesta, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. mforesta

    mforesta Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was well-written. I can't comment on the substance, though. I expect that one can write an equally compelling article that would leave exactly the opposite reaction from the reader. Right now, I don't see the USMC going anywhere. But then if you had asked me back in 1986 whether the Soviet Union would be collapsing in a few years, I probably would have dismissed that, too. The fact of the matter is that we are in for one heck of a financial "right-sizing" in the near future as we deal with sovereign debt issues, so anything's possible.
     
  3. GSKeziah

    GSKeziah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can answer all the fights going on in that article quite easily and unbiasedly:

    1. Even though I am Army all the way I'd admit that the article was a bash on Marines and possibly biased.

    2. Joining the Marines and Army into one branch would waste too much money and Advil. :biggrin:

    3. History is written by the winners its always been true whoever survived that battle got to tell what happened.

    4. Army should increase basic training to 12 weeks.

    5. Marines should be open to change and maybe a little less ignorant.

    6. We are all on the same team no need to fight.

    Lets all try and keep debates civil unlike the posts on that article. :thumb:
     
  4. sg1fan93

    sg1fan93 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Though I don't agree the USMC should be disbanded, I have to say I like that I now have an article to show up all my gungho Marine friends lol.
     
  5. Crusader 6

    Crusader 6 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the chest thumping "my service is better than your service!" crap is garbage, people need to grow up. We all fight the same enemy, and each service has blemishes in its history. Comparing any of the services is comparing apples to oranges, they all have very different missions and they all need each other. However, I do agree that Marines let a little too much "oorah" go to their heads, but every service likes to boost its opinion of itself. I do think that the Army needs to add a few weeks to basic and make good training come before the aid of the latest high tech gear, as well as get over political correctness and go back to focusing on being the world's premier land fighting force. Army and Marines can both learn from each other, Army should train everyone as an infantryman first before becoming specialized, and the Marines should be a little more open minded and accept that they can't do everything by themselves.

    In short, the Corps should not be shut down since they provide an important role in the U.S. Military that would just stretch the Army thin if it had to absorb even more responsibilities. I think everyone should pretty much be able to agree with this, just trying to make a reasonable argument that both sides can accept. If either service responds to this with chest thumping, it just proves my point. Every service is in this together, and it shouldn't matter which branch you belong to since you're serving the same country.
     
  6. jtoye

    jtoye NAPS '12 appointee

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO inter-service rivalries and competition are a good thing. Having 4 DOD branches that must fight for their slice of the pie and work together while focusing on their specific mission is better than having 1 large branch with far too much reach and leverage. Like others have stated in the end they are all on the same team.
     
  7. Crusader 6

    Crusader 6 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Competition makes sense, but full on rivalries are too much IMO.
     
  8. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Even though we're under DHS, don't forget about the Coast Guard!

    During WWII the Coast Guard led the majority of the island hopping operations in the Pacific, working with Marines, and served as the coxswains on the landing ships on the shores of Africa and Europe. (The Navy at this time wasn't as skilled as the Coasties in small boat operations).

    And of course, Signalman 1st Class Douglas Munro saved 500 Marines by placing his boat in front of them as a shield from oncoming Japanese fire, posthumously earning the Medal of Honor.

    Perhaps one of the most interesting relationships in the military is between the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps
     
  9. Crusader 6

    Crusader 6 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, I consider every service to be equal. In fact, I went to AIM this last summer at USCGA and was seriously considering the CG for my future. However, I decided that the Army is more my style and keeps the Army tradition in my family alive. Nothing but respect for the CG, they play a vital role in keeping our nation safe and they have some pretty cool toys.
     
  10. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    And when the dust settles; the air force will still have better chow halls; better housing; better bases; and the best golf courses. Hee hee :jerry:
     
  11. Crusader 6

    Crusader 6 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is one I will not dispute
     
  12. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,750
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Eh, disband them. I heard "somewhere" that the Army has more wartime amphib landings anyway. :wink:
     
  13. -Bull-

    -Bull- Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    334
    Why? Because 12 is longer than 9, so maybe it will be better? The Army trains to standard, not to time. As of right now, whether you agree with the standard or not, someone wearing 4 stars in a nice office has decided they can train to that standard 3 weeks faster than you can.

    I'm not neccesarily directing my response to you, rather to this question, so don't take anything personal. I dont like when people spout out that something should be lengthened just because another branch does it or what not. I believe if enlisted personnel needed more time to be correctly trained, they would be in BCT for longer periods of time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2011
  14. Mongo

    Mongo Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course there is redundancy. And with the Army becoming more involved in smaller unit operations, there will be even more redundancy. Let's not call it amphibious operations but forward deployed rapid response operations. Until there is no need for this, and I cannot imagine it ever happening, there will be a need for the Marines. With the new Osprey they are even more valuable. Doesn't 90% of the world's population live in rather close proximity of a coastline. A coastline that can have a Navy amphib parked there within no more than 72 hours? And with a little forewarning, immediately. There is a lot of skill and expertise involved in getting Marines on and off ships expeditiously and safely. I don't feel that it is something that the Army could do without devoting units exclusively to that tasking and allow personnel to remain with that speciality (which is exactly what the USMC is).

    Remember that the biggest problem with the Army is that it still is indeed an Army. I would guess that around 20% of the Army is in combat arms and the USMC is around triple that percentage. A very efficient unique asset.

    My $ .02 on basic training. I think it costs about $20,000 less to graduate a Marine than it does a soldier.

    The posted article is so full of bias and misinformation that it isn't even worth reading.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2011
  15. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Interesting article, even with its very obvious biases. And why is that so? Simply because the US taxpayer can no longer afford the size of the current budget, and the first and most obvious place to include in cuts will be the DoD budget. Let’s face it, the party days are coming to a close, and we can honestly expect a significant cut in the overall DoD budget; 25% or more is entirely in the realm of possibility. Simply stated, we can no longer afford to have significant levels of redundancies in capabilities and mission sets.

    And what does this have to do with the article’s original question: Do we really need a Marine Corps? It ultimately comes down to “what does the Marine Corps bring to the fight (what is the Corp’s current role and mission set), and what SHOULD that be (where are the redundancies that we can get rid of).

    Is the Army becoming more involved in small unit ops? Certainly. But since WWII, hasn’t the USMC significantly expanded ITS role to become its own self-sufficient Army, with large force capabilities that we’re traditional Army roles prior to WWII? Can we still afford to have this “second Army”?

    Ah, you’ve hit upon perhaps the most important role and mission set of the USMC (and traditionally the one the USMC was originally designed for, second only to ship-to-ship boarding responsibilities and keeping the peace on board): the ability to land ashore to secure ports of entry for follow on forces. The USMC is still VERY important for this role, and any talks of budget cuts based on re-establishing roles and responsibilities needs to keep this in mind. That is why I think the USMC has a proper function, and why it should remain.

    What needs to happen now in this age of reduced budgets? A serious review of ALL roles and mission sets for ALL the services, where we can discover where these redundancies exist and provide justification for them if able. Without serious justification, these redundancies need to be reduced. The USMC is an excellent rapid reaction force towards establishing ports of entry from the sea and have the ability to be self-sufficient for a short period of time. But beyond that, do they really need to be able to fight 100s of miles ashore for extended periods (which they currently do and have been doing for a while now)? Isn’t that the Army’s job? Isn’t the Army’s airborne division just as capable of establishing ports of entry? The issue becomes can the 82nd sustain ops for an extended period without support; the USMC brings this sustainment capability with it when they embark (lesson learned from Guadal Canal).

    As to the value of the new Osprey? Yet to be determined, as it mission rate hasn’t lived up to expectations. It does bring high value to the fight, but there are definitely cheaper (but less capable) alternatives.

    Certainly. But the 82nd’s task is to be there within 24 hours, not 72. With forewarning, either can be there immediately, but I think the enemy would be a little better prepared to defend their shores if they observe an Amphib Group sitting on their coast, don’t you? An airborne assault has a little better element of surprise.

    But like I said, the 82nd can’t sustain itself for an extended period like the USMC. But these shorelines areas usually have an airfield nearby. Air cargo can follow hours behind the 82nd and be up and running logistics support within days, if required.

    But overall, I still see the value of the USMC. But I can seriously contemplate a massive cut in their force size and mission set. A lot of folks I’ve been talking to in OSD and the halls of Congress are contemplating the same as we speak…

    Keeping that skill and expertise takes a LOT of money. Personally, I think it is worth it, as this mission set remains a distinct possibility in the future. Beyond this mission set? The USMC has a tough sell to keep their current capabilities to go deep inshore and stay there for a while…

    Amen, brother! From my own personal experience, I couldn’t agree more!
    Still doesn’t take away from the fact that the Army should be the fighting force deep in country for months at a time, which the USMC duplicates right now.

    Agree on the bias. Perhaps some misinformation, but from my personal experience in the theater they mentioned at the time frame mentioned (Battle of Fallujah, Najaf, and the Triangle of Death), it brings up some accurate points.

    And like I said, it starts a conversation publically that needs to be started given current fiscal realities…..
     
  16. NavalAcademyCandidate

    NavalAcademyCandidate Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just from reading this forum and doing some small amounts of research, it seems to me that the USMC is trying to do too much. Now I do have tremendous respect for the Marines and my uncle was a Colonel in the Marines, but still I think that because the format for war is so different now than it was 50-60 years ago.

    Marines seem to be better with small-forces, while the Army with large-force operations. Because the Army is geared for large-scale they have better amour, while the Marines are more about speed and quickness. I think of it as the Marines being a cornerback, and the Army being a defensive-end.

    Now this "diversity" was helpful in the past, because the USMC did not need to have the type of amour the Army did because small-force operations usually meant smaller arms warfare and less need for tanks or the like. For example, the Japanese didn't really have any heavy tanks for the Marines to deal with, and I can't remember any references to Japanese amour being a problem for the U.S. (but this could simply be chalked down to my lack of expert knowledge on the situation).

    However, the terrorists and insurgents of today do have access to large explosive devices such as IED's, and we can now longer assume that small-scale warfare inherently means small-arms warfare. It makes sense to me, then, that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars-however much they may be hated-are best fought by the Army. The Marines are still an important part of our military, but I think they should be scaled back. Please feel free to disagree in the sharpest of language as these are just my ideas and I am in no way solidified into this position.
     
  17. kp13

    kp13 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well this assumes that the standard is the same
     
  18. futureAFA

    futureAFA Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we can all agree that this will be a slow change over a long time, if it ever did happen. Also I think it would be a peace time thing.

    But honestly, I don’t see the Marines ever being deactivated. Possibly reduced in force, and capabilities, but never fully decommissioned. I don’t even want to think about the outcry from the present and past Marines.

    As for cost, I think it will need to be not cutting responsibilities, it will be finding more efficient ways to train and sustain soldiers and marines. A way so that they don’t need to spend money on things that could be just as good of a system for training.
     
  19. -Bull-

    -Bull- Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    334
    Don't see why it wouldn't....
     
  20. GSKeziah

    GSKeziah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    @ -Bull-

    I'm not talking about being skilled soldiers and comparing Army basic to Marine basic who can do such and such better, because when I said that 3 more weeks would be better its more of a duh thing, who wouldn't find 3 more weeks worth of training better.

    I don't care how the Army compares to the Marines in any retrospect because it isn't relevant. More time means one can learn simply learn more things. Even though I didn't take offense to what you said I find it absolutely crazy that out of everything you could of picked out of this is the common sense that 12 weeks is more beneficial then 9 (not necessarily better).
     

Share This Page