Disband the Marine corps?

rufrdr

rufrdr

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
4,294
Location
Willow Spring
Rating - 100%
81   0   0
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/12/28/how-absorb-marine-corps-army-and-navy.html

"How to Absorb the Marine Corps into the Army and Navy"​


28 Dec 2021
Proceedings | By Commander Norman R. Denny, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)

"For decades, the U.S. Marine Corps has attempted to tweak its force structure to enhance performance within a constrained funding environment. Rather than continuing to make changes around the margins, we would be better off revisiting a debate started following World War II and prematurely truncated during the Korean War. Does the United States need a light infantry force specializing in amphibious operations as a separate service, or should the Marine Corps be resized to the small police force it was prior to World War I and the amphibious organization incorporated into the Army?"
 
Lol, these articles pop up every few years. I'm a member of the Naval Institute (publishes 'Proceedings'), they published a counter editorial/article. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

Found it: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proc...ep-it-separate-why-america-wants-marine-corps

The Corps ain't going anywhere, but it'll definitely reshape and reimagine itself to ensure it remains viable.

The national security act of 1947 codified the Marines, meaning it would take rewriting law and Congress involved to do anything with the Corps, and no one wants to kill an icon.
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
Newsflash! Crayons Stock dives to lowest in decades!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
then now is the time to buy!! With the Marines broken up and sent to different services, they'll all be buying individual 8 crayon snack packs instead of the 64 and 96 count family meal combos. Demand is pretty fixed, so crayola will be selling in the higher margin packages now
 
The problem the Marines have, is they are not the Army.

I mean in the most clear role, the USMC needs to not do Army things, the USMC needs to do Marine things that only the Marine Corp can do.

Historically, the Marines always had a unique role. But the cold war shifted that to a conventual Army floating at sea. The Marine Corps needs to get the hell away from the Army in every aspect and be Marines. As they are the first truly joint fighting force in the US Arsenal.

Marines need to be a hard hitting joint force that attacks and does not hold land. They come in, fight and get back to their ships, allowing the Army to hold the land gained for the long term. No rotations in and out of a combat zone, no ownership of the battle space. Just come in, strike and bounce.
 
Last edited:
JBoyette said:
The problem the Marines have, is they are not the Army.

I mean in the most clear role, the USMC needs to not do Army things, the USMC needs to do Marine things that only the Marine Corp can do.

Historically, the Marines always had a unique role. But the cold war shifted that to a conventual Army floating at sea. The Marine Corps needs to get the hell away from the Army in every aspect and be Marines. As they are the first truly joint fighting force in the US Arsenal.

Marines need to be a hard hitting joint force that attacks and does not hold land. They come in, fight and get back to their ships, allowing the Army to hold the land gained for the long term. No rotations in and out of a combat zone, no ownership of the battle space. Just come in, strike and bounce.
Click to expand...

Honest question: isn’t that what the Airboen does? Go in, hit hard, tear stuff up, then bounce before organized resistance sets in? (Supposedly)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The military is expensive, with every service doing the same thing at some point. We spend billions on combat uniforms when only one would do. We spend billions on “special forces “ in each service , we spend billions training infantry in different services, medics, engineers, radio operators, pilots, mechanics, artillery, logistics. We spend billions in weapons procurement. Yeah, there is a better way. Combine these schools, downsize or shuffle people to where they’re needed, produce a more even flow between the branches, and save money. Case in point, the F-35. They’re all going to end up with them. They could move pilots around between services to fill shortages. Yes, there’s some differences in planes, but not enough that can’t be taught while at school learning to fly in the first place. Train them all in carrier landings, train them all in VSTOL . Why reinvent the wheel 4 or 5 times? It’ll never happen because money is being pocketed by others outside the military to include our congresscritters and leaders!
 
B00ger said:
Honest question: isn’t that what the Airboen does? Go in, hit hard, tear stuff up, then bounce before organized resistance sets in? (Supposedly)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

The 82nd Airborne Div sole mission to to be anywhere in the world in 18 hours or less.

Typically for a forced entry into a country the target will be a airport. The 75th Rangers will send a battalion (700 dudes) and the 82nd is right behind them with 1500 people and more stuff. That force of 2200 Airborne troops can hold a area for X period of time. Then the big Army flys in dropping off tanks, other units etc. Even the Marine Corp can launch from sea and land at this area and then go deeper.

Think of a game of leapfrog.

Now,
That's a air field. The Marine Corps can do the same for a sea port, beach landing, plus helicopters, plus its own attack aircraft.

Thats one example of how we project power.
 
Last edited:
JBoyette said:
The problem the Marines have, is they are not the Army.

I mean in the most clear role, the USMC needs to not do Army things, the USMC needs to do Marine things that only the Marine Corp can do.

Historically, the Marines always had a unique role. But the cold war shifted that to a conventual Army floating at sea. The Marine Corps needs to get the hell away from the Army in every aspect and be Marines. As they are the first truly joint fighting force in the US Arsenal.

Marines need to be a hard hitting joint force that attacks and does not hold land. They come in, fight and get back to their ships, allowing the Army to hold the land gained for the long term. No rotations in and out of a combat zone, no ownership of the battle space. Just come in, strike and bounce.
Click to expand...
From what I’ve seen recently I think the Corps is heading in that direction somewhat, getting rid of tanks etc.
 
B00ger said:
Honest question: isn’t that what the Airboen does? Go in, hit hard, tear stuff up, then bounce before organized resistance sets in? (Supposedly)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The Airborne could do that in theory, and did some in the old days, but in the modern battlefield they’d be torn to pieces by a real opponent . They dont have the vehicles or equipment to hold long and it takes time to deploy heavy forces. The Airborne used to have a light tank called the Sheridan that fired a shillelagh misleading that did a decent job. Those are long gone and the Army never ordered a replacement. Right now the US military has no light tank, nor a heavy tank for that matter, and the M-1, though a good tank, is a 1970s design that has been upgraded too many times.
 
Last edited:
Hammer12b said:
The military is expensive, with every service doing the same thing at some point. We spend billions on combat uniforms when only one would do. We spend billions on “special forces “ in each service , we spend billions training infantry in different services, medics, engineers, radio operators, pilots, mechanics, artillery, logistics. We spend billions in weapons procurement. Yeah, there is a better way. Combine these schools, downsize or shuffle people to where they’re needed, produce a more even flow between the branches, and save money. Case in point, the F-35. They’re all going to end up with them. They could move pilots around between services to fill shortages. Yes, there’s some differences in planes, but not enough that can’t be taught while at school learning to fly in the first place. Train them all in carrier landings, train them all in VSTOL . Why reinvent the wheel 4 or 5 times? It’ll never happen because money is being pocketed by others outside the military to include our congresscritters and leaders!
Click to expand...
Sounds good in theory but sometimes it’s better to specialize and be really good at one thing rather than be just ok at a lot of stuff.
 
Thanks John, I appreciate it.

On paper it would seem combining all of the armed forces into one would make sense. Streamline logistics, and prevent overlap of duties.

In reality, the esprit de corps is probably our militaries most potent weapon. I can think of a few times where we should have lost battles, but we’re too dang stubborn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hammer12b said:
The Airborne could do that in theory, and did some in the old days, but in the modern battlefield they’d be torn to pieces. They do t have the ve or equipment to hold long and it takes time to deploy heavy forces.
Click to expand...

In all honesty,
Even in WWII the Airborne lost its ass. A Airborne force has never held ground without 60% or more causality rate vs real resistance.
 
Last edited:
Hammer12b said:
The Airborne could do that in theory, and did some in the old days, but in the modern battlefield they’d be torn to pieces by a real opponent . They dont have the vehicles or equipment to hold long and it takes time to deploy heavy forces.
Click to expand...

Yup, my thoughts were on the older school WWII tactic of “drop behind enemy lines, be a major nuisance, and blow up anything that looks important to the enemy.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Whoknows said:
Sounds good in theory but sometimes it’s better to specialize and be really good at one thing rather than be just ok at a lot of stuff.
Click to expand...
But we have a lot of stuff already. And that’s what I’m saying. Everybody has cooks, train them together, everybody has MPs, train them together. It’s all about money in a “peacetime “ military. If you’re going to stand out, do something that no one else does and do it well. We are past the time for force restructuring and everyone has turned into the Army trying to stay relevant during the Mid East wars.
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
Honest question: isn’t that what the Airboen does? Go in, hit hard, tear stuff up, then bounce before organized resistance sets in? (Supposedly)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Marines are unique in their organic capability (what a unit can do without help from anyone else), and in combined arms maneuver warfare. Airborne can get attack helo's, but need to call the AF (or Navy or Marines) for fixed wing. Airborne has light armor, so do the Marines. The Marines deploy forward as a MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force), with all of this capability ready to go. Not to mention the MEUs afloat to serve as '911' forces.

Airborne are specialists in what they do, as are the Marines, but that does not make them same-same.

@Hammer12b , they already have many (most) interbranch schools (cooks, music, intel school, MP, armor, others, but the Corps doesn't have armor and MPs any more). There are some that are still branch specific. You have an excellent point in the redundancy, though....there is a LOT they can do to eliminate redundancy and waste.
 
Last edited:
Hammer12b said:
But we have a lot of stuff already. And that’s what I’m saying. Everybody has cooks, train them together, everybody has MPs, train them together. It’s all about money in a “peacetime “ military. If you’re going to stand out, do something that no one else does and do it well. We are past the time for force restructuring and everyone has turned into the Army trying to stay relevant during the Mid East wars.
Click to expand...

sounds good, but we (each branch), operation differently. the marine ordnance guys i worked with in kuwait were allowed to do things that we AF guys couldn't do as they could. same thing happened in reverse in AFG, army guys weren't allowed to do what we AF guys were trained to do.

so who's training/safety standards rule the day?
 
JBoyette said:
The problem the Marines have, is they are not the Army.

I mean in the most clear role, the USMC needs to not do Army things, the USMC needs to do Marine things that only the Marine Corp can do.

Historically, the Marines always had a unique role. But the cold war shifted that to a conventual Army floating at sea. The Marine Corps needs to get the hell away from the Army in every aspect and be Marines. As they are the first truly joint fighting force in the US Arsenal.

Marines need to be a hard hitting joint force that attacks and does not hold land. They come in, fight and get back to their ships, allowing the Army to hold the land gained for the long term. No rotations in and out of a combat zone, no ownership of the battle space. Just come in, strike and bounce.
Click to expand...

The Corps is getting back to that concept in light or peer/near-peer competitors (i.e., China). Iraq and AStan did not help them by getting into "just another army" doctrine, even though their methods at the beginning of AStan were revolutionary.
 
Chuckman said:
The Marines are unique in their organic capability (what a unit can do without help from anyone else), and in combined arms maneuver warfare. Airborne can get attack helo's, but need to call the AF (or Navy or Marines) for fixed wing. Airborne has light armor, so do the Marines. The Marines deploy forward as a MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force), with all of this capability ready to go. Not to mention the MEUs afloat to serve as '911' forces.

Airborne are specialists in what they do, as are the Marines, but that does not make them same-same.

@Hammer12b , they already have many (most) interbranch schools (cooks, music, intel school, MP, armor, others, but the Corps doesn't have armor and MPs any more). There are some that are still branch specific. You have an excellent point in the redundancy, though....there is a LOT they can do to eliminate redundancy and waste.
Click to expand...
You forget that the Marines rely heavily on the Navy to get around. Key West Agreement of 1947 is the reason the Army doesn't have fix winged attack aircraft. Don't forget too that the Army did more amphibious landings around the world than the Marines did in the Pacific during WWII. This gets brought up every decade. Don't think the jarheads are going to go away. We can send them to the Space Force next.


CD
 
rufrdr said:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/12/28/how-absorb-marine-corps-army-and-navy.html

"How to Absorb the Marine Corps into the Army and Navy"​


28 Dec 2021
Proceedings | By Commander Norman R. Denny, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)

"For decades, the U.S. Marine Corps has attempted to tweak its force structure to enhance performance within a constrained funding environment. Rather than continuing to make changes around the margins, we would be better off revisiting a debate started following World War II and prematurely truncated during the Korean War. Does the United States need a light infantry force specializing in amphibious operations as a separate service, or should the Marine Corps be resized to the small police force it was prior to World War I and the amphibious organization incorporated into the Army?"
Click to expand...

3B88A825-CCEE-420C-A96B-989BB843DACC.gif
 
Combat Diver said:
You forget that the Marines rely heavily on the Navy to get around. Key West Agreement of 1947 is the reason the Army doesn't have fix winged attack aircraft. Don't forget too that the Army did more amphibious landings around the world than the Marines did in the Pacific during WWII. This gets brought up every decade. Don't think the jarheads are going to go away. We can send them to the Space Force next.


CD
Click to expand...

I did not forget that. The Marines have to have the Navy....it's not only inherent in the job description (naval infantry), but codified in law. Even the army has to have the Navy. The army cannot move anything other than manpower with the navy (at least the USNS fleet).

The army's amphibious capability in WW2 was purely due to numbers: the size of the Marine in 1941 was 54,000. The army was 1.5 million.

The naval service started the Space Force (Alan Shepard, John Glenn) so no doubt they'll be there, too.

Edited to add, I am interested to hear your views on MARSOC/Raiders since they co-opted several SF-specific missions. I have no dog in that fight; I was with recon before the MARSOC days.
 
Last edited:
The Corps resisted for decades to join SOCOM. Only after 05' or so when the money was dumped into SOCOM did the Marines want to join. Raiders follow the SF template and duplicate it. Waste of time and resources as there's enough SF to do those missions. Same with the SEALs taking SF/CAGs mission way far away from water. SF also needs to get back to its core missions.

CD
 
Combat Diver said:
The Corps resisted for decades to join SOCOM. Only after 05' or so when the money was dumped into SOCOM did the Marines want to join. Raiders follow the SF template and duplicate it. Waste of time and resources as there's enough SF to do those missions. Same with the SEALs taking SF/CAGs mission way far away from water. SF also needs to get back to its core missions.

CD
Click to expand...

Commandant Al Gray was the one who came up with the MEU(SOC) concept and opposed to joining SOCOM. He said Marines were elite enough, which of course just feeds into their PR machine. It was my understanding that they still resisted joining but saw the handwriting on the wall, to your point especially with $, but also no say in GWOT.

You say there's enough SF to do SF missions, but SF claims there is not, that it is undermanned. I don't know either way. I do know SOCOM is wanting funding for 1,000 more SO guys across all services (bumping SOCOM to 71,000). Again, I have no dog in this. My only issue with MARSOC was how it decimated recon in the early days, but it's all good now.

I agree re: NSW. SEALs think they are the best thing since sliced bread. I also think they need to stay true to their maritime roots. I know there are SEAL platoons who only get wet once a year for their yearly comps. In recon we stayed wet.

RE: SO in general, the AF is growing like crazy. That's the next big group to explode.
 
Chuckman said:
Lol, these articles pop up every few years. I'm a member of the Naval Institute (publishes 'Proceedings'), they published a counter editorial/article. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

Found it: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proc...ep-it-separate-why-america-wants-marine-corps

The Corps ain't going anywhere, but it'll definitely reshape and reimagine itself to ensure it remains viable.

The national security act of 1947 codified the Marines, meaning it would take rewriting law and Congress involved to do anything with the Corps, and no one wants to kill an icon.
Click to expand...

In the article you linked to, the author makes the point that ground attack aircraft need to be under to control of Marine commanders thus Marine Air. To that point, fixed wing ground attack aircraft should be under to control of Army commanders and removed from Air Force control but we know the AF will not ever let that happen.
 
rufrdr said:
In the article you linked to, the author makes the point that ground attack aircraft need to be under to control of Marine commanders thus Marine Air. To that point, fixed wing ground attack aircraft should be under to control of Army commanders and removed from Air Force control but we know the AF will not ever let that happen.
Click to expand...

Operationally--that is who calls for CAS--'control' is given to the person who is doing the calling, Marine, solider, AF JTAC/CCT/TACP, etc. AF is same. But yeah, the ACE will always be under the control of a Marine commander.
 
rufrdr said:
In the article you linked to, the author makes the point that ground attack aircraft need to be under to control of Marine commanders thus Marine Air. To that point, fixed wing ground attack aircraft should be under to control of Army commanders and removed from Air Force control but we know the AF will not ever let that happen.
Click to expand...

You want to hand over a beautifully complex peace of machinery (like the A-10), to a bunch of knuckledraggers who will draw dick picks in the cockpit??? I think not
 
I do know there are some multi branch training. My ex son-in-law was an MP in the Marines and he was trained at Ft Leonard Wood with Army MPs. My son is in the Air Force and was scheduled to receive his rotary wing training at Ft Rucker with the Army.

Mods please delete my post. I did not realize the thread was in the Veterans section. I do not hold that honor and should not have posted. Sorry gentlemen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Average Joe said:
I do know there are some multi branch training. My ex son-in-law was an MP in the Marines and he was trained at Ft Leonard Wood with Army MPs. My son is in the Air Force and was scheduled to receive his rotary wing training at Ft Rucker with the Army.

Mods please delete my post. I did not realize the thread was in the Veterans section. I do not hold that honor and should not have posted. Sorry gentlemen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Marines fall in the naval aviation pipeline, they train in Pensacola, Florida, but do advanced and follow on training at Ft. Rucker. My flight nurse course was supposed to be at Ft. Rucker.
 
Diablos said:
so who's training/safety standards rule the day?
Click to expand...
That’s when they get together and decide what standards to follow. It’s all a pipe dream as it’ll never happen. Too much money flows through the military into too many pockets. If you streamline it, they will lose money!
 
Average Joe said:
I do know there are some multi branch training. My ex son-in-law was an MP in the Marines and he was trained at Ft Leonard Wood with Army MPs. My son is in the Air Force and was scheduled to receive his rotary wing training at Ft Rucker with the Army.

Mods please delete my post. I did not realize the thread was in the Veterans section. I do not hold that honor and should not have posted. Sorry gentlemen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your thread was relevant. I have no problem with it.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
All part of ending the sworn defense of the people and the constitution of America.
Click to expand...

Truman hated the Marine Corps, in part because of some things that went down in WW1. As president he tried to get congress to disband the Corps. This argument has been going on for at least that long. In fact, after the revolutionary war, they did disband the Marines for a while, but public pressure on congress brought them back.
 
Chuckman said:
Truman hated the Marine Corps, in part because of some things that went down in WW1. As president he tried to get congress to disband the Corps. This argument has been going on for at least that long. In fact, after the revolutionary war, they did disband the Marines for a while, but public pressure on congress brought them back.
Click to expand...
I would classify all the assaults on the military today as to gaining controll.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
I would classify all the assaults on the military today as to gaining controll.
Click to expand...

The original article was an opinion piece in Proceedings, a publication of the Naval Institute. It wasn't official (i.e., administration) policy or doctrine. That said, there is a guy, a 'special advisor' in the DOD, who hates the Corps and has made noise about getting rid of it, but it hasn't made it very far.

www.military.com

New DoD Adviser Has Made Controversial Proposal: Get Rid of the Marine Corps

Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor has a reputation as an iconoclastic thinker on military strategy and tactics.
www.military.com www.military.com
 
Every few years some slack-jawed, booger-eating moron writes a paper about doing away with the Marines.

For some, it's obviously because they have absolutely no idea about how and why the Marines are important to combat capabilities, like this current idiot.

For others, like retired Army Col. Douglas MacGregor, it's about money to be gained by the other services as a result. He even said USMC stood for "Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability".

No, MacGregor, I'm sure the Marines think it stands for "U Suck My C*ck" in your case.

And still others write to get their 15 minutes of dubious fame in headlines somewhere for saying something stupidly controversial.

Of course they don't say these things are their real reasons, but that's what it's about.

This whole argument that "this armed force already does this" and "that armed force already does that" is horse sh*t.

That's a game that the rest of the armed servicemembers play in our rivalries while knowing the underlying realities. These people seemed to have forgotten this, or worse never realized it in the first place.

It's almost like listening to someone in the Army say they can do it all themselves, not realizing they can't do sh*t before the Air Force and Navy gets them (and all their equipment and supplies) there first.

"Oh, that just means the Air Force and Navy should be part of the Army".

Shut your f*cking pie hole, gear up, and get your *ss aboard so we can drop your carcass off where the Marines cleared a spot for you.

We have these armed serviceS so each can be GOOD at what they do.

Army needs to be good at Army stuff.

Navy needs to be good at Navy stuff.

Air Force needs to be good at Air Force stuff.

Marines need to be good at Marine stuff.

And the Coast Guard needs to be good at wading.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom