Disband the Marine Corps?

@ -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).

Shake 'em off, boys. This ain't a contest.

I think the most entertaining part of this discussion are the sweeping and certain declarations by high school seniors and freshman cadets about exactly what the military needs and doesn't need.
 
I can say its the biggest question about the military and probably the most enduring one I've had...the roles of the Army and USMC are obviously similar, so I've always wondered what made the Navy so special to have its own ground force

But the disbanding and/or merger of the Marines would never happen - most likely there will be a public backlash and I the Navy wouldn't allow it to happen. Besides, if there's a law governing the matter...

I also disagree that having inter-service competition/rivalry is a positive thing. If you scroll down the article and read the comments, some of them are pretty nasty and harsh. That kind of sentiment probably exists among others and I just don't think thats healthy

Can someone answer why merging them would cost money? And why keeping them separate forces costs more money? Or do I have it the other way around?
 
Shake 'em off, boys. This ain't a contest.

I think the most entertaining part of this discussion are the sweeping and certain declarations by high school seniors and freshman cadets about exactly what the military needs and doesn't need.

Then please enlighten us with what you think since you know better than everyone here :smile:
 
Well doesn't it make sense if we argue for disbanding the Marine Corps over Fallujah we could argue for disbanding the 173 ABCT over Wanat?
 
I got one lets argue having the government use Macintosh instead of Microsoft that is just about as likely the Marine corps being disbanded, I do love Macs though.
 
Then please enlighten us with what you think since you know better than everyone here :smile:

Not better than everyone here...I'm just blessed with slightly more experience than those who are so quick to offer definitive opinions on exactly what's right and wrong about the Army and USMC. I'm more than happy to enjoy the opinions of our older and more experienced members--a stance that many of our bright-eyed youngsters would be wise to adopt.

As an old Warrant Officer I know put it, "Son, I have pairs of boots with more time in the Army than you." Bear that in mind when you don't see me pontificating on the myriad problems or offering sound-byte solutions.
 
Shake 'em off, boys. This ain't a contest.

I think the most entertaining part of this discussion are the sweeping and certain declarations by high school seniors and freshman cadets about exactly what the military needs and doesn't need.

Nice to see you back! :thumb:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
@ scoutpilot

I completely agree with hearing the opinions of the more experienced, I'd like to think that is why its good for the less experienced to say things that may not be as insightful so they can be corrected or at least get someone's opinion. I for one will always have problems telling a more veteran NCO or WO what to do regardless of outranking them and will always value their opinions and I definitely will not be one of those Service Academy grads who think they know everything right out of the academy with no actual battlefield experience if that is what you are going at.

So can we hear what you think?
 
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.
I am almost positive that at this very moment there is a carrier battle group and also an Marine amphibious group sitting off the coast of Egypt. Waiting. And waiting some more. And the moment things go to hell in a handbasket, they are ready to react. Ready to react in the protection of American assets and lives. Ready to react where every hour's delay means a greater probability of the loss of these assets and lives. The knowledge that this deterrent exists probably does more to protect our embassies and other foreign interests than all the barbed wire and vehicle barriers in the world. The 82nd, from Pope AFB, can not do this.

I would bet that the greater percentage of USMC assets is required to provide this single service all over the world with an acceptable peacetime sea/shore rotation that will preclude Marines from foregoing a career due to undue hardships. Of course during wartimethey step forward and assist the Army.
 
I am almost positive that at this very moment there is a carrier battle group and also an Marine amphibious group sitting off the coast of Egypt. Waiting. And waiting some more. And the moment things go to hell in a handbasket, they are ready to react. Ready to react in the protection of American assets and lives. Ready to react where every hour's delay means a greater probability of the loss of these assets and lives. The knowledge that this deterrent exists probably does more to protect our embassies and other foreign interests than all the barbed wire and vehicle barriers in the world. The 82nd, from Pope AFB, can not do this.

If course there is extreme value in having the forward presence of a carrier Group and an Amphib group, both in the value of being ready to act at a moment's notice, and in their deterrent value. The question remains: can America afford to keep level of forward presence at today's levels when our current economic situation may dictate a massive reduction in force? Are there other assets within the US military that bring similar capabilities? Perhaps not an exact match, or at slightly less levels, but similarities all the same. And are we as Americans willing to take the risk if we go for a cheaper but less capable alternative?

But my response was to your statement on the reaction time of a Carrier Group (or Amphib Group) in an emergency. Yep, after 4 days of unrest in Egypt, we probably now have these assets in striking distance from the Nile, if necessary. Just as I'm sure the ERB (Emergency Ready Brigade) of the 82nd Airborne, which is packed and ready to be in combat anywhere in the world within 24 hours, could be there at a moment's notice if required. Which asset would have been able to take the mission if we needed boots on the ground on Day 2 and not Day 4? Granted again, an Amphib Group, supported by a Carrier Group (which they usually are) has greater immediate sustainment and support ability than an independent Army brigade. And again, it all comes down to can America afford that capability?

As to the inability of the 82d Airborne to act as a deterrent force, I remind you of the circumstances of Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY. America was able to get a dictator to capitulate just with the knowledge that a division of angry paratroopers were hours from knocking on his door. (I should know, I was one of them).

I would bet that the greater percentage of USMC assets is required to provide this single service all over the world with an acceptable peacetime sea/shore rotation that will preclude Marines from foregoing a career due to undue hardships. Of course during wartimethey step forward and assist the Army.

Wholeheartedly agree; the USMC is an OUTSTANDING rapid reaction force. But over the past 70+ years, they've also became more and more an alternative to the heavy capabilities of our Army. My question is "Why is that? And do we need to continue to pay for two heavy Armies?"
 
Our posture in world affairs alone causes our assets overseas to become targets. Not protecting these assets to the utmost of our ability would cloud our standing in the world. Are we ready for this? It would bring on a entire new perspective to each and every statement and action which the US makes in the world arena. Back in the days of the cold war I would agree that the USMC was redundent. However, with the no end in sight of the global war on terrorism and the tough stand we must make against it, never knowing when and where the next hot spot is going to erupt, I would say that we have to afford this capability.
 
So can we hear what you think?

I think we might as well argue about banishing the sunrise. It's about as likely.

You'd have a much easier time getting rid of the Coast Guard. The USMC has image management down to a science. The Marines are far too entrenched in the lore and psyche of the American peoples' concept of our military to ever seriously worry about being deactivated.
 
Just for clarification' sake, I also agree that we never will (nor should) see the total deactivation of the USMC. They have very unique and tremendous capabilities.

I also agree with Mongo's assessment that reducing our current capabilities would definitely increase risks.

But a serious discussion on this topic has to include honesty, and an honest debate now will look at the extreme likelihood of a massive cut in the US defense budget on the horizon. So I ask, where is the best place to make these cuts? Shouldn't we take an honest look at where the redundancies lie within the DoD's capabilities, and make an honest assessment of where we would get the best "bang for our buck" (pun intended), or what we can honestly afford to keep?

But honesty is also "High Demand / Low Density" asset in DC. Too many power players with too many biases and too much "Not In My BackYard" attitude. What most likely will happen is the "salami slice" method, where everyone will have to take an equal cut, and all will become equally less capable. Not the smart method to do business, but the political method...
 
I think we might as well argue about banishing the sunrise. It's about as likely.

You'd have a much easier time getting rid of the Coast Guard. The USMC has image management down to a science. The Marines are far too entrenched in the lore and psyche of the American peoples' concept of our military to ever seriously worry about being deactivated.

Do you think that any service could get as got at image management as the Marines, or the way they do it makes it hard for other services to keep up the pace?
 
I am so tired of this drivel every 10 years. Since 1775 the Marines have had to fight for their existence. What exactly do they have to do that will "ensure their existence for the next 500 years"(James Forrestal after the raising to the flag on Iwo Jima)? My God, how short sighted have we become as a nation to continue to question the one military branch that is always there to do the country's bidding? The one group that says "Aye Aye" and proceeds to get the assigned job done. Always underfunded, underequipped, undermanned but always doing the job assigned. Eliminate the WASTEFUL spending on all of the government giveaways.

Y'all sound like Harry Truman who almost succeeded in transferring the Corps to the army in 1950. That was right before he had to send, what was left of them, into Pusan to bail the Army's butt out of a mess. Then, with reservists, successfully land in Inchon and make MacArthur a hero.

How about instead of writing about all of your "economic justifications to eliminate duplication" you stop and write your Senators and Representative and tell them to make economic sense and eliminate all of the social and political giveaways and get on their knees and thank God that we have the Marines to keep their silly Butts safe and free every day.

END: Rant
 
Re-buttal rant: ON

Understand your concerns there, subsquid. As to your references that we should instead spend our time only looking for ways to cut spending in other areas outside of the DoD budget? News flash: that train has left the station a LOOONG time ago. Defense budget cuts, perhaps even more drastic than what the SECDEF has already proposed, are coming whether you like it or not. I'd rather have our military leadership make an honest assessment and honest recommendations as to where those cuts should come from than the folks across the Potomac, who usually don't have a clue about requirements and capabilities outside of what is best for their own district. Wouldn't you?

Are there other efficiencies we can look for before we make recommendations for drastic cuts. Certainly. But in OUR budget, they are the small potatoes. You want real cuts, you need to look at two things: benefits / pay, and big-ticket toys. You ask I not look at reducndant capabilities? Fine, how about we look at capabilities that may no longer be required or we have over-capacity in? Worse yet, we could use the standard model the folks in the halls of Congress are using, such as "has this asset been used in the current conflict?" Don't see too many torpedoes being fired at insurgent convoys in Afghanistan, do we now? I'm even willing to look at ALL the services, ALL the capabilities. Are you?

You can rant and rave all you want, and hold your breath until you turn blue like a spoiled child who refuses to give up a few of his toys. I'd rather be the mature individual here and realize thatjust like my household budget, I have to keep a balance between wishes and realities...

Re-buttal rant: OFF
 
I am so tired of this drivel every 10 years. Since 1775 the Marines have had to fight for their existence. What exactly do they have to do that will "ensure their existence for the next 500 years"(James Forrestal after the raising to the flag on Iwo Jima)? My God, how short sighted have we become as a nation to continue to question the one military branch that is always there to do the country's bidding? The one group that says "Aye Aye" and proceeds to get the assigned job done. Always underfunded, underequipped, undermanned but always doing the job assigned. Eliminate the WASTEFUL spending on all of the government giveaways.

Y'all sound like Harry Truman who almost succeeded in transferring the Corps to the army in 1950. That was right before he had to send, what was left of them, into Pusan to bail the Army's butt out of a mess. Then, with reservists, successfully land in Inchon and make MacArthur a hero.

How about instead of writing about all of your "economic justifications to eliminate duplication" you stop and write your Senators and Representative and tell them to make economic sense and eliminate all of the social and political giveaways and get on their knees and thank God that we have the Marines to keep their silly Butts safe and free every day.

END: Rant

We really need an IQ test for rants around here.

Excellent job of not letting facts get in the way of your argument.
 
Last edited:
@ scoutpilot

I completely agree with hearing the opinions of the more experienced, I'd like to think that is why its good for the less experienced to say things that may not be as insightful so they can be corrected or at least get someone's opinion. I for one will always have problems telling a more veteran NCO or WO what to do regardless of outranking them and will always value their opinions and I definitely will not be one of those Service Academy grads who think they know everything right out of the academy with no actual battlefield experience if that is what you are going at.

So can we hear what you think?

If you are going to have "problems telling a more veteran NCO or WO what do do regardless of outrnaking them," you need not become an officer.

First, regardless how junior you are, if you are in charge, you are in charge.

Second, I had no problem correcting some cockey NCO or WO talking about junior officers should listen them because he or she had more experience (rarely happened as most good NCO or WO will not make such statement to junior officers). An E7 with 14 years in the Army, but not all 14 years as an E7 or never held a PSG or acting PL position, so how can this E7 has PL experience on you as a PL. Of course, I always listend to my NCOs and WOs, if they gave me good counsel. The hardest thing for you to do as a young officer is deteremine your NCOs are giving you good consel or not. Most cases they are, but never as a comissioned officer can you say I did it because a NCO/WO told me to do, you did whatever because you made the decision as a leader.

Third, what is an "actual" battlefield experience? Don't confuse combat patch, CIB, and CAB as "actual" battlefield experience. I am an OIF vet, but no one shot at me directly while I was at Iraq. CIB and CAB mean that you were in a combat zone and were receiving end of some sort of hostile enemy action.

Lastly, trust yourself, your education, and your training to make the right decisions. Of course, wise counsel from your experienced subordinates should be always welcomed and always help.
 
I understand what you're saying MemberLG but you must admit that there is a fine line between the two. On the reverse side do you think a random college bachelor degree and next to no military experience gives you an all better judgment in every scenario? When looking at it this way is what I have a problem with when I say that.
 
I understand what you're saying MemberLG but you must admit that there is a fine line between the two. On the reverse side do you think a random college bachelor degree and next to no military experience gives you an all better judgment in every scenario? When looking at it this way is what I have a problem with when I say that.

A random college bachelor degree and no military experience doesn't entitle you to make the decisions. The butter bar on your uniform does. While you don't have more experience than your PSG/ SSG's, you listen to what they have to say and then you make your own decision while respecting their opinion. It's not perfect, but it is the situation you and I will be put in as 2LT's. We need to be comfortable with that fact.
 
Back
Top