I agree that a WWII style amphibious landing is for the most part impractical in a true all out war scenario.
The capability does still need to exist, as alluded to.
I would expect to see more Remote piloted attacks and troop/logistic airlift for initial combat situations with amphibious only for logistical support after beachhead areas are deemed secure.
My view is the Marines have become, since Afghanistan, a 2nd Army. Or at least they seem to be treated that way, when they are intended to be a Naval service providing ground attack capabilities and support.
Note: the reason that Marines serve embassy duty is partially because the Navy has a specific authority to propose and negotiate treaties. Arises from the old days when communications took months if not years. The Marines would then provide security for established embassies/posts that resulted.
Would love to see Marines on every Ship instead of just amphibs and carriers, though I doubt that is going to happen.
I was in (USN) just after the ‘86 document (’85-’94) so the ‘lack of integration’ weren’t as apparent.
I can understand having 2 seats at a joint table could create more conflict between the two. If it’s gotten as significant as it seems from the article then it definitely needs addressed.
Just my initial 2 cents.
“propose and negotiate” in no way of course means ratify.