Posted on 08/22/2005 2:52:20 AM PDT by SuzyQ2
This is one of those rare moments when it might be better if I were not a former Marine. Don't misunderstand me, I'm incredibly proud of my prior service as one of America's "few good men." But I'm afraid I may now come across as being somewhat less-than objective when I attempt to blast Navy fawning James F. Dunnigan out of the water (no pun intended). Here's why:
Last month, Dunnigan, acclaimed author and the editor in chief of Strategy Page, wrote a piece, "Why the U.S. Navy Is Creating a New Marine Corps," in which he said, "the toughest troops in the Navy Department are not the Marines, but the sailors who belong to the SEALs."
Tougher than Marines? Is he kidding? Is there anything on the planet "tougher" than those men who waded ashore at Tarawa in 1943, battled their way back from the frozen Chosin Reservoir in 1950, fought house-to-house for Hue City in 1968, captured 80 percent of the island of Grenada (though they only comprised 20 percent of the landing force) in 1983, or fought the worst sort of fight-to-the-death fanatics – often tooth-to-eyeball – in the 2004 battle for Fallujah?
How, pray tell, can anyone be tougher than that? Granted, one might be equally as tough, and there certainly are picked-men within special units who are trained for specific types of operations, and in that sense they may have more extensive training for those types of missions and specific equipment for special operations. But to suggest that those men are somehow tougher than U.S. Marines is just, well, not true.
(Excerpt) Read more at reportingwar.com ...
I think the point that the author was making was that the Marines, having gotten so large, were no longer really part of the Navy Dept.
Hence the need for a 'new' Marine Corp to fill the void.
Well uh yeah. That's obvious. But the point of the response article seemed to me was in the 'authors' misuse of terms like tough and quality.
This is one of those deals where the 'Headline' doesn't really match the 'Content' of the article. I read Dunnigan's piece and like most of his work there is a provocative headline and an interesting openning line and then -- yawn -- he tells you something you already knew.
The US Marine Corps is by far the largest, most capable force of naval infantry in the world. Most nations maintain small units of this type -- a few regiments at most. The balance of Dunnigan's article alleges that the US Navy can't get the Marines to do some of the things (like advance-base/ship security) that Marines have traditionally done. Therefore, the Navy wants to create a force of naval infantry to perform these tasks. This contradicts the title of his article about the Navy creating a 'new' Marine Corps, because that is NOT what is going on.
As far as this former-Marine is concerned, I'd like to ask him one question: What is the drop-out rate of USMC recruit training versus BUDS. Prejudice aside, the drop-out rate is how you determine who is 'tougher'.
My impression was that the author was not comparing the two, but stating that it was the SEALS who were doing what the Marines had stopped doing.
Amen and Semper Fi.
bttt
Each group has its own specialty, and there is no "one" definition of toughness. Somebody who might be ideal for an intense 5 hour mission might not make it thru 5 months of slogging, etc
Tallguy asks "What is the drop-out rate of USMC recruit training versus BUDS. Prejudice aside, the drop-out rate is how you determine who is tougher."
I can't speak for the former Marine, but as a former Sailor I can tell you that the BUDS dropout rate is much higher. But here again you are comparing apples to oranges not only in the individual branches of service but the way the training for both is set up.
Marine boot camp is set where you it almost requires an act of Congress for you to dropout. The instructors can wash you out, but if you try to quit they do everything they can to keeping you from quitting.
In BUDS its different. Ring the bell and you are OUT.
You don't want to be there. They don't want you.
The Marine Corps wants to build men and "basically" train them for war at the same time.
The SEALs on the other hand, are training picked men for special operations who have already been "basically" trained.
So, you are WRONG on using that as a determination for whose tougher.
This is silly.
The SEALS and the Marines are both tough as hell and I'm proud of them.
I think there are other units which are more selective and even higher trained tho.
When we were aboard ship and dropped the whiskey jug overboard, we'd grab the nearest frogman and toss him over to go fetch it.
We had great respect for their swimming prowess. :-)
There is a lot of demand for all SpecOps units at the present time. One of the fears is that the increased demand will necessitate an acceleration in training (to create more operators) and that will in turn de-grade the quality of the force.
Wouldn't it be more correct to compare SEALs to Marine Force Recon?
In any case, I'm glad they're all on our side...
Apples and oranges. Comparing the rock rate between Force Recon and BUDS would be valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.