WHEN YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY REALLY NEED TO KICK ASS RIGHT NOW!
Posted on 11/16/2020 1:40:52 PM PST by RomanSoldier19
Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, newly-appointed as a senior adviser at the Pentagon, has a track record of making controversial statements. But his most provocative of all might be a proposal to do away with the U.S. Marine Corps.
In a 2012 opinion piece for Time Magazine, Macgregor, a decorated veteran of the Gulf War, argued that the Corps was living on its past glories and was unsuited for combat on today's battlefield, with the possible exception for pushover enemies.
He went further, too, suggesting the acronym "USMC" should really stand for "Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability."
"Most of today's Marine force consists of airmobile light infantry," Macgregor wrote. "This Marine force is designed for use in the developing world against incapable opponents from Haiti to Fiji, but not much else."
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
I guess someone needs to quote the rhyme: "If the Army and the Navy ever look on Heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines."
Since one of the the most immediate likely locales and scenario for war is the Western Pacific and a fight with the Chinese for island territories I would think the Navy's branch of ground pounders are still a valuable asset.
If we accept that China will be a relatively near term opponent, then the Marines are vital to that scenario. Engagement across various South China Sea islands seems reasonable.
WHEN YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY REALLY NEED TO KICK ASS RIGHT NOW!
It’s probably not a majority opinion on this forum, but if you are serious about reining in the defense industrial complex, you have to realign the forces and that means rolling the Marines into the Army. There can still be Marine units, just make the eagle globe and anchor a skill qualifier like Ranger. Otherwise, you’re just arguing about costumes and fighting over which strippers to marry.
There’s way too much overlap in skill positions throughout the military. This gives contractors and lobbyists four or five chances to get at taxpayer money, makes everything more expensive because it’s duplicated across branches of service, and divides some critical skills that are becoming difficult and will become even more difficult to fill in coming years into four or five different piles.
There’s no actual reason for there to be multiple military branches fielding recruiters, or holding distinct initial entry training, or wearing so many different uniforms. A cook is a cook, a medic a medic, a Chinese linguist a Chinese linguist. Take the best of breed and roll the others under it, and if there are tactical implications for what conditions people in those jobs face, you address it at the unit level.
...Or, you just let things be and try to nibble around the edges with a congressional hearing about a four hundred dollar wrench every few years.
No they are not on every surface ship. The Marines stopped providing mardets on carriers in 1998. They had not served on cruisers since the early 70s. The Amphibious ships do have small standing dets of marines to help coordinate onload/offload of troops and equipment, etc. I served on and LKA in the 70s. Our Marine detachment consisted of a captain and a gunnery sergeant.
I suppose you could read the excerpt....
Shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan , the NY Post had a front page picture of a green beret riding into battle on a donkey. Lesson? Nothing in the military is truly obsolete . Nothing handled that terrain as well as the donkey. There will always be a time when you need donkeys and a time when you need grunts. Semper Fi .
Thanks for the advice.
I have always thought of the USMC as the tip of the spear. A spear without a tip is pretty useless in my opinion. The other 3 branches have always coveted what the Corps has, and is ignorant (sometimes willfully so) of how important the Corps is. They are the only branch that can get it done on land, sea, or air by themselves. We actually need to be “growing” the Corps instead of allowing the other branches to siphon off resources the Corps could better utilize. For smaller operations they are a much more efficient use of resources than trying to get the prima donas of the other branches coordinated into a cohesive force.
I don’t doubt that there are some meaningful restructuring possible to more properly focus on land, sea, air, and space. Merge the Army and Marine Corps? The Marines are part of the Navy, would the Navy give them up. Should be an interesting discussion.
or remove DOD advisers
Of course the Marine Corps is superfluous, if your goal is to lose wars.
Some are paratroopers. Check it out. ANGLICO.
I stand corrected on the ships service.
Didn’t know that. I stand corrected.
Just to set the record straight, the Navy is the transportation division of the USMC
:)
‘The Navy is the transportation division of the USMC’
Church
I respect the Marines for one specific reason: No one in the military does so much with so little. I have complete faith, regardless of social experiments being conducted on the military, that if you need Marines anywhere on the planet to fight any enemy that they will be there and fully capable.
But who will hold the Umbrellas for Biden Harris ?
The Army has been taking potshots at the Marines since forever. I particularly remember some Colonel in the 50s who called the Corps, “a bitched up little army talking Navy lingo”, and promised that once they were folded in the Army they would be turned into “efficient soldiers”.
I don’t think there is any chance of that happening — at all.
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.
