Good article, but it leaves out a few things:
1. In both the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, the USMC has relied extensively on the US Army and US Air Force logistics pipeline. When you talk about "packing your trash", remember who's providing it. The Army has, since WWII, been postured for the long fight (while maybe not the quickest draw) and the logistics channels are geared towards that. After nearly two years in Iraq and even longer in Afghanistan, the use of the term "expeditionary" needs to be tightened up, a bit.
2. "Expeditionary", apparently, means relying on other services heavier elements for support. Namely, the reliance on 3rd ID artillery (M109A5 SP, not towed like USMC M198 guns) in the primary preparatory fires for the USMC assault into Iraq and the use of Bradley CFVs to initiate the Fallujah assault. While both weapons systems aren't necessarily geared towards the "expeditionary" role, it amazing how often they were called upon.
You are correct--nobody wishes to deny the other services the privilige of the service duties for Marines--go ahead and wait the tables, carry the bags, etc.
Fitting!
Please don't play yourself.
If it is there, we'll aquire and exploit it...we're Marines.
We rely heavily on US Navy logistics as well...problem there? That is how the US Military is designed to operate...with the Marine Corps being the Hammer [Case in point: Fallujah].
Get over the schizophrenic, grasshopper mentality that displays itself with "Oh Yeah" statements and loaded questions.
No matter what tac you take. What avenue of approach you use...at the end of the day, we're still the ones titled: "Marines" ...and it's for a reason.