View Full Version : No difference between the Army and the Marine Corps?
How ignorant can our secretary of Defense be? well don't answer that question.
on a June 16th article in the Stars and Stripes Mideast Edition quoted the Secretary Gates asking "what differentiates (the Marine Corps) from the Army?" gates asked on a speech this year.
are you for real? "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061405172.html
now, no disrespect to my Army brothers but there is a difference in the two branches of service.
variablebinary
07-15-10, 11:25
How ignorant can our secretary of Defense be? well don't answer that question.
on a June 16th article in the Stars and Stripes Mideast Edition quoted the Secretary Gates asking "what differentiates (the Marine Corps) from the Army?" gates asked on a speech this year.
are you for real? "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061405172.html
now, no disrespect to my Army brothers but there is a difference in the two branches of service.
It's not the same.
Yes the Army has amphibious capabilities, and the Marines have land warfare skills, but that doesnt mean they are the same.
It would be almost like saying the Navy doesnt need fighters because the Air Force has fighters.
Gates is allowing the war to give him tunnel vision. We will not be in Afghanistan forever.
And I sure as hell don't want to be stranded on a ship with a bunch of sailors, so let the Marines keep doing what they do :p
Army Chief
07-15-10, 12:48
It is a really question of resourcing and focus, and quite honestly, the Army and the Marines have overlapping -- but by no means identical -- fields of fire. This kind of specialization serves the nation well, and while this may not necessarily be in evidence in Afghanistan, we would do well to remember that Afghanistan is surely not the last battlefield that America is going to face in this generation.
It is easy to lose the forest for the trees at times, but I doubt the Secretary truly believes that the Army and the Marines are truly redundant in the grand scheme of things. At least, I certainly hope not.
AC
CarlosDJackal
07-15-10, 13:34
If they were so similar they would have merged them into a single entity a long time ago. Just in the history of why they were formed and where they have been used should be a clue.
This regime seems to be made up of some of the most ignorant individuals ever!! :meeting:
variablebinary
07-15-10, 13:36
If they were so similar they would have merged them into a single entity a long time ago. Just in the history of why they were formed and where they have been used should be a clue.
This regime seems to be made up of some of the most ignorant individuals ever!! :meeting:
Actually, we cant totally beat up Gates.
The debate over the value of the Marines has been raging since forever.
"What differentiates [the Marine Corps] from the Army?" Gates asked in a speech this year. "We will always have a Marine Corps. But the question is, how do you define the mission post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan? And that's the intellectual effort that I think the next commandant has to undertake."
This does not strike me as an ignorant statement, taken in whole. He is talking about defining what that difference in capabilities SHOULD be, to face the next threat.
theblackknight
07-15-10, 13:42
I think Gates is trying to piss us off.
Nathan_Bell
07-15-10, 13:46
If they were so similar they would have merged them into a single entity a long time ago. Just in the history of why they were formed and where they have been used should be a clue.
This regime seems to be made up of some of the most ignorant individuals ever!! :meeting:
Look post-WWI, the Marines developed their amphibious assault capabilities because they were worried they were going to get relegated to naval security guards. Had WWII not happened the Corps would have been kaput as a separate combat entity a long time ago.
To be honest Gates does have a point about the cost of a contested beach landing, but that has more to do with the mindset and direction of naval construction the past half century than any fault of the Corps. Ships made post WWII cannot take a hit without being rendered hors de combat and during a beach assault, ships will take hits.
"What differentiates [the Marine Corps] from the Army?" Gates asked in a speech this year. "We will always have a Marine Corps. But the question is, how do you define the mission post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan? And that's the intellectual effort that I think the next commandant has to undertake."
This does not strike me as an ignorant statement, taken in whole. He is talking about defining what that difference in capabilities SHOULD be, to face the next threat.
I understand what you are saying Todd. but even then, we have always been a force on readiness. we patrol the seas waiting for something to go wrong and be called in to fix it. that is what our amphibious mission allows us to do, if we need to go secure and embassy we can, if we need to respond to tsunami victims we can, if we need to go rescue a down pilot we can.
I think that the secretary of defense doesn't know what he is saying, who does he think he is going to have patrolling the seas in support of our country? does he really think that we still charge the beaches like our fathers did? we have helo's and other tools at our disposal to allow us to keep our ships a lot more secure from missiles.
I think he is a retard, and doesn't know what he is talking about.
CarlosDJackal
07-15-10, 15:41
I guess it's too much to assume that the Marines, as a Combat Arm, can always be deployed by the POTUS without any declaration of war or permission from any of the Legislative Branches.
As much as I really feel like cutting out my own tongue AND gouge out my eyes for the the very fact this current idiot has that type of power and more important: the RESPONSIBILITY to be able to do this; it is a capability that has served us well as a nation (Shores of Tripoli anyone?).
Even though the current POTUS would rather send a box set of CDs than the Marines into an area where our Citizens have been murdered is not relevant. I am holding onto the hope that the next guy will have the experience, foresight, sense of responsibility and the intestinal fortitude to convince any of our enemies that he (or she) WILL send in the United States Marines should they cross us. JM2CW.
...................................
Please don't dishonor the patriotism and sacrifice of Soldiers and Marines with that tired and false statement, designed to imply that only the poor who can't get any other work would chose to serve their Country.
Littlelebowski
07-15-10, 16:22
Actually, we cant totally beat up Gates.
The debate over the value of the Marines has been raging since forever.
By the ignorant.
Again, dumb people trying to roll us all into one service, which will never work, but keeps being presented as a cost saving and more logistically feasible model. Argh.
The Army tackles jobs we absolutely could not, and we bring a very different organizational skillset to the table, and everybody has better things to be focusing on right now.
Belmont31R
07-15-10, 16:31
The Army has done amphibious ops quite a bit, too. The Marines by no means have the only capability to do so. Its just as big of focus as it is in the Marines. North Africa, Italy, and France + some of the Pacific were done by Army soldiers if you want to go back in history....
The Marines are not also the only first responders. Army airborne can jump anywhere in the world very quickly. Army does it from the air, and Marines do it from the sea. The Army also has quite a few vessels of their own, BTW.
One thing I always noticed is in chowhalls Marines eat next to each other by rank, and we always ate by team/section.
http://www.the-daily-politics.com/images/stories/201003March/20100326/tsv-1x%20spearhead.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3354/3565215306_f0f4d3c0a1.jpg
;)
variablebinary
07-15-10, 16:48
By the ignorant.
To the layman, all they see is a guy with a gun, in camo in the desert.
...trying to roll us all into one service...
...very different organizational skillset to the table...
I don't see any such thing in the quote.
"What differentiates [the Marine Corps] from the Army?" Gates asked in a speech this year. "We will always have a Marine Corps. But the question is, how do you define the mission post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan? And that's the intellectual effort that I think the next commandant has to undertake."
Define the mission based on what we think the next threat will be and the best use of the "very different organizational skillset". If that is less of a focus on beach landings so be it, I'm confident we can still find a good way to kill our enemies with Marines...
I fail to see the big deal here.
I don't see any such thing in the quote.
"What differentiates [the Marine Corps] from the Army?" Gates asked in a speech this year. "We will always have a Marine Corps. But the question is, how do you define the mission post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan? And that's the intellectual effort that I think the next commandant has to undertake."
Define the mission based on what we think the next threat will be and the best use of the "very different organizational skillset". If that is less of a focus on beach landings so be it, I'm confident we can still find a good way to kill our enemies with Marines...
I fail to see the big deal here.
I concur with ToddK, as the SecDef it's Gates' job to challenge the military leadership to define how their individual services will contribute to the national defense.
His statement, taken out of context by the OP was not one of ignorance but a rhetorical question meant to provoke thoughtful discussion.
It's that type of thinking that led the USMC to develop their amphibious warfare capability in the 1920's and 1930's and the use of helicopters in the 1950's and 1960's.
The Army did the same with the development of Airborne forces prior to WWII, the Navy and its focus on nuclear submarines post WWII as well as the Air Force with it's ICBM's and heavy bombers.
Gates is allowing the war to give him tunnel vision. We will not be in Afghanistan forever.
That is not only correct, but sadly, it is an understatement.
RogerinTPA
07-15-10, 21:58
To the civilian leadership, there is no difference between the two land forces. POTUS is desperate for cash so he's making Gates cut what ever he can to siphone off the money to fund more social programs. It all about $.
Army Chief
07-16-10, 06:20
One thought that I wanted to express earlier was that, politics and policy aside, I've really been impressed by the mutual respect and cameraderie that has developed between the Army and the Marines as we've partnered together to shoulder most of the load in this two-front war of ours.
That's not a slap in the face of our sister services, but there are some things that only a rifleman can understand, and as a career Soldier, I appreciate, and am inclined to defend, the uniqueness of our Marine Corps. In turn, I think a lot of Devil Dogs have come to recognize that the Army has plenty of meat-eaters in its own right, who are every bit as committed to the warrior ethos.
For Washington's purposes, there probably ought to be a world of difference between the two, but at the Anytown, U.S.A. VFW Hall, I'll gladly share a table with a Marine any day of the week.
AC
One thought that I wanted to express earlier was that, politics and policy aside, I've really been impressed by the mutual respect and cameraderie that has developed between the Army and the Marines as we've partnered together to shoulder most of the load in this two-front war of ours.
That's not a slap in the face of our sister services, but there are some things that only a rifleman can understand, and as a career Soldier, I appreciate, and am inclined to defend, the uniqueness of our Marine Corps. In turn, I think a lot of Devil Dogs have come to recognize that the Army has plenty of meat-eaters in its own right, who are every bit as committed to the warrior ethos.
For Washington's purposes, there probably ought to be a world of difference between the two, but at the Anytown, U.S.A. VFW Hall, I'll gladly share a table with a Marine any day of the week.
AC
+1
couldn't agree more, Brothers in Arms are Brothers in Arms. No matter the branch.
variablebinary
07-16-10, 07:39
FWIW, I dont think the Marines are going anywhere.
It would absolutely ruin the military vote for the democrat party for 100 years.
FWIW, I dont think the Marines are going anywhere.
It would absolutely ruin the military vote for the democrat party for 100 years.
A new and much different administration would be in power before any merger or disbanding could be implememented. I agree, it'd hurt them for a lot longer than the decision would stand.
CarlosDJackal
07-16-10, 08:10
One thought that I wanted to express earlier was that, politics and policy aside, I've really been impressed by the mutual respect and cameraderie that has developed between the Army and the Marines as we've partnered together to shoulder most of the load in this two-front war of ours.
That's not a slap in the face of our sister services, but there are some things that only a rifleman can understand, and as a career Soldier, I appreciate, and am inclined to defend, the uniqueness of our Marine Corps. In turn, I think a lot of Devil Dogs have come to recognize that the Army has plenty of meat-eaters in its own right, who are every bit as committed to the warrior ethos.
For Washington's purposes, there probably ought to be a world of difference between the two, but at the Anytown, U.S.A. VFW Hall, I'll gladly share a table with a Marine any day of the week.
AC
I read an AAR for the Battle of Fallujah from the Marines' perspective and was very impressed with the comments they made about the US Army Cavalry Unit (TF 2/7) that spearheaded the attack in 2004. By all accounts, the Troopers of the 2/7th CAV and US Marines worked well together and any inter-service rivalry and philosophical difference disappeared at H-hour.
While I have been involved in some "friendly" arguments founded on inter-Branch rivalry; I have never disrespected any of the other branches, particularly the Marines. Each of us has a specific role in combat - all of which support the men who have to occupy or defend any piece of real estate that is under our control: The Infantryman. Only the US Army and the USMC have true-blue Infantrymen. This is why the Marines and the Army are the branches that are the closest to being inter-changeable (based on actual MOS).
I have found that the worse individuals who like to incite this rivalry the most are civilians who consider themselves as "military expert" but never had the 'nads to serve in any of the branches. Their view is based on the books and articles that were written by someone from one branch or another. And a lot of them do not understand the concept of interoperability and/or supportability between the Combat units from the various branches.
Rivalry is sometimes good as it brings out the best of us during training. But I have served with individuals who came from all the branches and there is one thing that has held true for me: it doesn't matter whether you are/were a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine; as long as you do the job you were trained for to the best of your abilities, you're alright by me!! JM2CW.
variablebinary
07-16-10, 08:49
A new and much different administration would be in power before any merger or disbanding could be implememented. I agree, it'd hurt them for a lot longer than the decision would stand.
If you are a Democrat running for office, do you really want hundreds of thousands of Marines hating your guts, and teaching their kids to hate your guts for generations?
Irrespective of when the person was in office, its a death wish for the party to try and kill off a whole branch of the military.
They wouldnt be able to shake that stigma off for a long time. Dems literally would need an amnesty bill to offset the massive loss of votes
I enjoyed working with Marines in the field and there was none of the BS you might find in a bar, just the mission.
SeriousStudent
07-16-10, 21:27
Indeed. After the usual boot camp and grunt school chest puffing, most of my Marines settled down and always returned respect where it was offered.
It is funny, in a way. The people that were the most "parochial" tended to be the rear-echelon pogues. The closer they got to the sharp end of the spear, the more they tended to appreciate any and all help. ;)
I did go to a service school and ended up hanging out with a pair of Army sergeants - one from the 82nd, and the other from the 3rd Ranger Batt. Sharp guys, and my young grunts soon learned they had a lot more in common with them than they realized.
Regarding the original post, I think it is good thing to analyze one's mission, culture and tools periodically. One charge that the military often has leveled is "preparing to fight the last war." Some thoughtful introspection can help avoid that.
theblackknight
07-17-10, 07:13
It is funny, in a way. The people that were the most "parochial" tended to be the rear-echelon pogues. The closer they got to the end sharp end of the spear, the more they tended to appreciate any and all help. ;)
this
My fav new toy, the Hooah buttonhttp://hooahbutton.com/store
SeriousStudent
07-17-10, 09:40
this
My fav new toy, the Hooah buttonhttp://hooahbutton.com/store
Hehehe! That is pretty funny! I can't blame a brother for trying to make a legal income in this economy, though.
It would be a fun gag gift for the right person. ;)
Stay safe, and thank you for your service.
I think we are getting all worked up over nothing. Both services have there place and specific capabilities that can't be replicated by the other. The good news is both branches offer land fighting skills that are necessary for our national security. The upside to the Marine Corps is that it has the ability to deploy with damn near everything needed to fight. We poor soldiers have to wait for the Air Farce for our CAS while it is part of the MCs package. This capability alone makes the MC ideal for emergency deployments. BLUF- the Corps isn't going away anytime soon.
Now if you want to argue about a branch of service perilously close to disappearing consider the Air Force. We have so many joint base and training sites between the Army and Air Force that they may as well be the Army Air Corps again. I work with AF personnel on a daily basis here at Fort Sam. They are nice people and all but they lack the Warrior spirit. I also wish they would stop calling me "Sir."
I concur with ToddK, as the SecDef it's Gates' job to challenge the military leadership to define how their individual services will contribute to the national defense.
His statement, taken out of context by the OP was not one of ignorance but a rhetorical question meant to provoke thoughtful discussion.
It isn't. It's about funding their utopia.
To the civilian leadership, there is no difference between the two land forces. POTUS is desperate for cash so he's making Gates cut what ever he can to siphone off the money to fund more social programs. It all about $.
theblackknight
07-17-10, 20:48
Hehehe! That is pretty funny! I can't blame a brother for trying to make a legal income in this economy, though.
It would be a fun gag gift for the right person. ;)
Stay safe, and thank you for your service.
I love it, cause it instantly shows me which Jarheads "get it" and those that don't. Of course all the superpog desk fliers get all huffy, question my pride in service, and prob go home and recite their general orders to call back down again.
SeriousStudent
07-18-10, 00:19
I love it, cause it instantly shows me which Jarheads "get it" and those that don't. Of course all the superpog desk fliers get all huffy, question my pride in service, and prob go home and recite their general orders to call back down again.
And half of them own a bulldog named "Chesty".........
I'll never see 50 again. There's a lot of white in the beard these days, and sometimes I need a cane to get around. But it's funny how some things have not changed a bit since I got out. ;)
Another reason for a distinctive USMC uniform; so the ignorant SECDEF can tell the difference between Gyreens and soldiers.
It isn't. It's about funding their utopia.
Remember that the Corps is part of the Dept. of Navy. The Navy is the only .mil branch that is guaranteed funding. The constitution states that we must raise and fund a Navy. IMO that means that the Marines are constitutionally protected with the Squids.
Cincinnatus
09-17-10, 12:22
It looks like the Corps will have to fight for its survival as it did in the late 1940's.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/13/send-away-the-marines/?page=1
If this has already been discussed, somebody please direct me to the thread.
jklaughrey
09-17-10, 12:42
On this note I am sorely pissed off. But on the lighter side the article rings true. Obama just signed his death toll of ever being effective or elected to any political office in the future. The Marine Corps is as much a part of our nation's history as the Declaration and George Washington.
DaBears_85
09-17-10, 12:53
Do we need the Marines? The answer is yes, most definitely. The Marines are so much more than just an amphibious assault force, they're a psychological weapon that strikes fear into the heart of whomever stands opposite of them. Even scaling the Corp back would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
If this has already been discussed, somebody please direct me to the thread.
Here
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=58176
It's media sensationalizing a simple reality.
"Military branches needs to define future mission based on projected threats." just won't sell you many papers as a headline.
Bare in mind that the article is an opinion piece, and not a report from the DD that they're shutting down the Marines.
Cincinnatus
09-17-10, 13:09
Latest on this issue.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/13/send-away-the-marines/?page=1
Remember that the Corps is part of the Dept. of Navy. The Navy is the only .mil branch that is guaranteed funding. The constitution states that we must raise and fund a Navy. IMO that means that the Marines are constitutionally protected with the Squids.
"Section 8: The Congress shall have power ... To provide and maintain a navy;"
As far as article 1, section 8 goes, it is enumerated as a power, not a guarantee.
DaBears_85
09-17-10, 13:34
I read an AAR for the Battle of Fallujah from the Marines' perspective and was very impressed with the comments they made about the US Army Cavalry Unit (TF 2/7) that spearheaded the attack in 2004. By all accounts, the Troopers of the 2/7th CAV and US Marines worked well together and any inter-service rivalry and philosophical difference disappeared at H-hour.
While I have been involved in some "friendly" arguments founded on inter-Branch rivalry; I have never disrespected any of the other branches, particularly the Marines. Each of us has a specific role in combat - all of which support the men who have to occupy or defend any piece of real estate that is under our control: The Infantryman. Only the US Army and the USMC have true-blue Infantrymen. This is why the Marines and the Army are the branches that are the closest to being inter-changeable (based on actual MOS).
I have found that the worse individuals who like to incite this rivalry the most are civilians who consider themselves as "military expert" but never had the 'nads to serve in any of the branches. Their view is based on the books and articles that were written by someone from one branch or another. And a lot of them do not understand the concept of interoperability and/or supportability between the Combat units from the various branches.
Rivalry is sometimes good as it brings out the best of us during training. But I have served with individuals who came from all the branches and there is one thing that has held true for me: it doesn't matter whether you are/were a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine; as long as you do the job you were trained for to the best of your abilities, you're alright by me!! JM2CW.
I haven't agreed with anything more than this in a long time. Well said sir...
It is funny, in a way. The people that were the most "parochial" tended to be the rear-echelon pogues. The closer they got to the sharp end of the spear, the more they tended to appreciate any and all help.
This too...
Goddamn I love this country.
Cincinnatus
09-17-10, 13:39
Here are some pertinent quotes on the Marine Corps's missions as defined by law from the 1956 edition of the Marine Officer's Guide. The role and missions of the Corps are enshrined in actual law, not just DOD policy/tradition, etc.
"In taking stock of Marine Corps missions found in law [the most prominent of these laws are: the Act of 11 July 1798 reestablishing and organizing a Marine Corps (the previous one, begun in 1775, was disbanded after the American Revolution along with much of the rest of the U. S. armed forces), the Act of 30 June 1834, “For Better Organization of the Marine Corps,” and the National Security Act of 1947 as amended, particularly by the Douglas Mansfield Act of 1952 (“Public Law 416, 82d Congress, 2d Session”)], it is important not to overlook the phrase, “ . . . and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct.” This phrase, which the Unification Act [National Security Act of 1947] quotes directly from the 1834 Marine Corps Law, stems in turn from similar language in the Act of 1798. It validates in law Marine Corps functions which transcend the Corps’ purely naval missions. . . .
."
These Laws specify that the role and mission of the Marine Corps is:
"The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952. Marines are trained, organized and equipped for Offensive amphibious employment and as a “force in readiness.” According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
"There are seven elements of the Marine Corps Mission.
"a. Provide Fleet Marine Force with combined arms and supporting air components for service with the United States Fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the execution of naval campaign.
"b. Provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy and security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval Stations and bases.
"c. Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine, tactics, techniques, and equipment employed by landing forces in amphibious operations.
" d. Provide Marine forces for airborne operations, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, according to the doctrine established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"e. Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine, procedures, and equipment for airborne operations.
"f. Expand peacetime components to meet wartime needs according to the joint mobilization plans.
"g. Perform such other duties as the President may direct."
Also, the structure of the Marine Corps is also protected by law as being at least two divisions and aricraft wings.
We don't really need a Marine Corps.
But good luck finding finding anybody who can accomplish as much using as little, with so much style :D
The article is conjecture. Maybe this, maybe that. Typical Washington Times dreck. But what else would you expect from the Moonie mouthpiece. How anyone can read this article and freak out that "Obama is getting rid of the Marine Corps" is beyond me. But most of the silliness people say about Obama by some people is beyond me. So no surprise there.
For those who are actually paying attention the Marine Corps itself constantly evaluates its mission and tactics. Especially about the type and nature of amphibious assaults they will conduct. They certainly are not planning on WWII style amphibious landings.
He didn't' really answer the question other than to say it is being evaluated. Which it is. By the Marine Corps itself. How can the Marine Corps be so anti-Marine Corps as to evaluate and possibly revise its mission!! As it has always done. Nothing to see here.
Cincinnatus
09-17-10, 15:05
They certainly are not planning on WWII style amphibious landings.
Neither was Truman or Omar Bradley.. then we had Inchon.
Submariner
09-17-10, 15:07
It isn't. It's about funding their utopia.
No, funding their bankers.
Two-time Medal of Honor winner Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler's quote comes to mind.
“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
The Marine Corps has a few more years left.
"The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years." —Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal to LtGen H. M. Smith, as the Marines raised the flag on Mt. Suribachi over Iwo Jima, 23 Feb. 1945. (http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/marine-corps-quotes)
http://todaysseniorsnetwork.com/Iwo%20Jima%20Flag%20Raising.gif
I am pretty sure we need the Marines more than we need Obama.
A friend of mine who spent 20 yrs in the field and his last 5 yrs as a strategic planner in the Pentagon for the "Agency" told me that Rumsfeld was kicking around the same idea some years back. The overwhemling responses was to the effect that the Corps does the "most with the least" and "most bang for your buck". We'll see how the situation develops as this isn't the first time that the idea of doing away with the Corps has been entertained and I'm sure it wont be the last. What I will say as a former Marine grunt ( and dont any of my brothers get mad at me for saying this!! ) is that large scale amphibious landings "ala WWII" are most likely in the rear view mirror for the Corps. Thats their bread and butter speciality. They need to change with the times or go they might be going the way of the dinosaurs. Small scale, counter-insurgency. Maybe get back to some WWII style raiding.
Cincinnatus
09-17-10, 15:21
He didn't' really answer the question other than to say it is being evaluated. Which it is. By the Marine Corps itself. How can the Marine Corps be so anti-Marine Corps as to evaluate and possibly revise its mission!! As it has always done. Nothing to see here.
Not exactly. There has benn a litany of incidents throughout the illustrious history of the Corps where this or that President or other offical tried to do away with the Marine Corps. See the following for how this nearly happened at the time of the Korean War:
Major Michael R. Melillo, USMC, “Korea 1950; A Legacy for the Marine Corps” (Master of Military Studies Paper, CSC, 1999)
The Marine Corps has ample reason to be suspicious and not just because of this WT article. There have been many indications coming down for a while now that the Corps is to become a shadow of its former self and a laboratory for radical social experimentation.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/the-few-the-proud-the-marines-getting-a-makeover/19592478?a_dgi=aolshare_email
As for the remark that "Moonies" write the WT, I suppose you think the Washington Post is written by learned, intelligent sophisticates? :sarcastic:
Cincinnatus
09-17-10, 15:23
There has benn a litany of incidents throughout the illustrious history of the Corps where this or that President or other offical tried to do away with the Marine Corps. See the following for how this nearly happened at the time of the Korean War:
Major Michael R. Melillo, USMC, “Korea 1950; A Legacy for the Marine Corps” (Master of Military Studies Paper, CSC, 1999)
The Marine Corps has ample reason to be suspicious and not just because of this WT article. There have been many indications coming down for a while now that the Corps is to become a shadow of its former self and a laboratory for radical social experimentation.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/the-few-the-proud-the-marines-getting-a-makeover/19592478?a_dgi=aolshare_email
SeriousStudent
09-17-10, 18:23
Does America need a Marine Corps?
Nope.
Does it want a Marine Corps?
Most emphatically yes.
BigLee71 is correct. The Corps typically does provide a good amount of combat power, for the budget dollars it costs. Even adding back in the logistical and medical support costs from the Navy, it's still very much a bargain.
If you have an opportunity, you might track down a thin book called "First to Fight". It was written in 1984 by LtGen "Brute" Krulak. It basically covers this question, and was written to answer it.
We currently live in a world of outsourcing. That is a business model our current political office-holders are very familiar with.
I'm an IT security geek by trade now, and an M-60 machine gunner long ago. As long as I can perform my job better than someone else, at a competitive cost, I'll keep my job. The instant I fail at that, I'm gone - outsourced. That's just reality.
And the minute the Corps becomes a liability, it will be gone as well.
I do not see that happening anytime soon. Us jarheads are crafty bastards, and we know that "they" are always after us. I think one of the shots I got in boot camp was to inoculate a healthy dose of institutional paranoia.
Watching the bravery and valor of the young Marines we have now, I am not worried at all. We'll be here for a bit longer.
OP, can you do Mr. Gates job better than he can?
Modern anti-ship missiles make contested landings difficult. Yet if the USMC is to be used on land in an identical role as the Army, what is the point of having it? It is time for some soul searching. Some of you guys need to think outside the box.
The new EFV is unreliable and overly expensive. The US hasn't made a major contested landing since Inchon. To date the Army has made more and bigger landings than the USMC anyway.
My brother suggests taking the airborne from the Army and giving that capability to the Marine Corps. Also, only jumping people who are needed in ABN units or serving in them, no point in training legs to jump and keeping their ratings current. the USMC could then resume it's role as a quick reaction force, able to sustain the fight until Army heavy brigades arrive by sea. Thoughts?
The Army is dependent on the Air Force (although it should not be--USA should have it's own aircraft for transport and CAS) for everything but the MAGTF is not. Short of reorganizing to give that capability to the Army, it needs to be kept intact.
By the way, the most ardent supporters of the Marine Corps myth are those who did one tour and got out, not officers or lifers. I don't mean to be disrespectful to the USMC, but they have carefully cultivated an image that is more than what is true, and they should be given credit for that--it was skillful and remains useful.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to the USMC, but they have carefully cultivated an image that is more than what is true, and they should be given credit for that--it was skillful and remains useful.
While you say you don't mean to be disrespectful, you sure as **** are. Marines take great pride in our battle history and service to our country. The reputation of the U.S. Marine Corps as a premier fighting force is earned and not the product of some marketing campaign.
While you say you don't mean to be disrespectful, you sure as **** are. Marines take great pride in our battle history and service to our country. The reputation of the U.S. Marine Corps as a premier fighting force is earned and not the product of some marketing campaign.
Spot on RWK. So Ryan, the battle for Fallujah and the taming of Al Anbar province was all hype? Nobody else could have handled Al-Anbar. My old unit, 3/6 has been working non-stop since these wars started and in the crappiest places. Its no hype or marketing ploy. When NO-ONE else can handle the job, send in the Marines. Anyone who states otherwise should spend less time time on the internet and more time reading history books.
I guess Army Generals including a 5 star had a hand in crafting the "facade" put up by the U.S.M.C. Read what U.S Army Generals had to say about the Marine Corps:
" The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord how they could fight."
Major General Frank E. Lowe U.S Army Korea. 26 January 1952
" Why in the hell cant the Army do it if the Marines can? They are all the same type of men; why cant they be like Marines?"
General John J. "Blackjack" Pershing U.S Army. 12 February 1918
"We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of the island and three Army regiments pinned
down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?"
General John w. Vessey Jr. Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff during the assault on Grenada. 1983
"I have just returned from the front and there is no finer fighting force in the world"
General of the Armies, Douglas MacArthur U.S Army Korea. 21 September 1950
I have to thank these fine Army Generals for conspiring to "carefully craft" the Marine Corps " undeserving, unwarranted" image.
I guess you have to have been a Marine to understand that we do not care about image. All we care about is kicking ass and getting the
job done. Now unless we get someone on here that out ranks or is more historically signifigant than the fine Generals listed, I guess we
call "Ryans ass-umtions" exactly that. Its hard being king of the hill. You'll always have someone nipping at your ankles.
jklaughrey
09-17-10, 23:19
Having first hand combat experience as a Corpsman with 1/5, then with 5th Reg. I can say that the level of expertise and courage knows no bounds among the Corps. I was treated as one of them...a brother, trained to fight and save their lives if need be.
Ryan you are upside down on this issue. I can safely say you would not dare spout off that bullshit in front of a Marine, or for that matter any other Honorable sailor, airman, or soldier. Go crawl back into your safe little internet turtle shell. Let the "real men/women" do the fighting son.
While you say you don't mean to be disrespectful, you sure as **** are. Marines take great pride in our battle history and service to our country. The reputation of the U.S. Marine Corps as a premier fighting force is earned and not the product of some marketing campaign.
There are things in this world which are unwise to poke with a stick. Our organization is unquestionably one of those entities.
If anything, every protracted land battle has ended up at critical points requiring a force of Marines to handle things the Army was unable to.
We are not used the same way as the army, for numerous reasons, which makes our MAGTF based units a superiour choice for a variety of roles.
You'll be extremely hard pressed to find a worthwhile airmen, sailor, or soldier who would not acknowledge that few fighting organizations in history have a reputation comparable with our dinky little Corps.
Spot on RWK. So Ryan, the battle for Fallujah and the taming of Al Anbar province was all hype? Nobody else could have handled Al-Anbar. My old unit, 3/6 has been working non-stop since these wars started and in the crappiest places. Its no hype or marketing ploy. When NO-ONE else can handle the job, send in the Marines. Anyone who states otherwise should spend less time time on the internet and more time reading history books.
The Army went into Fallujah too. Had they been assigned Al-Anbar they would have done as you did.
Be realistic about the USMC. You have most likely the best land warfare officers in the US military. The USMC gets better recruits than the Army. But there are structural differences that are not always to the benefit of the USMC. The USMC is not designed to fight long term mechanized wars. It is the world's pre-eminent expeditionary warfare service, but there are tasks for which it is unsuited. Blocking the Fulda Gap would have been a waste of the Marine Corps, for instance.
As to a carefully managed image: The Marine Corps employs PR specialists, both in uniform and contracted, to maintain it's reputation. Also, USMC history and heroes are taught in boot, whereas the same cannot be said of the Army and BCT. The goal of the Marine Corps effort is to recruit good candidates and instill in them esprit d' corps. The Army can't compete with that service wide--Army esprit d' corps is unit based.
Specifically, though, the myth of the Marine Rifleman is overblown. There is a reason that your qualification was redrawn recently to resemble more closely the conditions found in the real world.
Summation: Elan is great in individuals and units but less useful when considering matters of a strategic nature.
If anything, every protracted land battle has ended up at critical points requiring a force of Marines to handle things the Army was unable to.
Please describe to me the role of the USMC in the ETO during the second world war.
We are not used the same way as the army, for numerous reasons, which makes our MAGTF based units a superiour choice for a variety of roles.
Exactly
You'll be extremely hard pressed to find a worthwhile airmen, sailor, or soldier who would not acknowledge that few fighting organizations in history have a reputation comparable with our dinky little Corps.
This is true.
variablebinary
09-18-10, 03:24
If anything, every protracted land battle has ended up at critical points requiring a force of Marines to handle things the Army was unable to.
Not unable to do, and certainly not unwilling.
Not allowed to do is more like it.
RogerinTPA
09-18-10, 08:38
Not unable to do, and certainly not unwilling.
Not allowed to do is more like it.
Agreed.
To RyanB: The typical scenario happens all the time: Army Generals saying they can take the objective themselves, Marine Generals screaming for a piece of the pie and get in on the fight. Theater Commander tries to appease both and "Walla", you have a "Joint Op" on your hands. Happens all the time, even within the services. I've run out of fingers and toes hearing the following arguments: Airborne can go it alone, SOF can go it alone, Rangers can go it alone, Leg Mech INF can go it alone, Armor can handle it, etc....and everyone of them screaming at the top of their lungs for a piece of the fight and glory. The top CG makes it a combined force. Happens more than most would think.
The USMC is not designed to fight long term mechanized wars.
So what?
It is the world's pre-eminent expeditionary warfare service
At least you've got one thing right.
...there are tasks for which it is unsuited. Blocking the Fulda Gap would have been a waste of the Marine Corps, for instance.
Again, so what?
Also, USMC history and heroes are taught in boot, whereas the same cannot be said of the Army and BCT. The goal of the Marine Corps effort is to recruit good candidates and instill in them esprit d' corps. The Army can't compete with that service wide--Army esprit d' corps is unit based.
That's right. We're not a gaggle of individuals cobbled together with a limited sense of identity. When Marines fight, the entire Marine Corps fights. There's none of that "Army of one" horseshit. Commanders of all services like the Marine Corps because the Corps always comes prepared to fight and we bring all our toys with us.
Specifically, though, the myth of the Marine Rifleman is overblown.
So your entire "myth" argument comes down to just this? Please humor me, just what is the myth of the Marine rifleman?
Some of you Marines need to put the F'in crack pipe down, and join the rest of us in reality.
I absolutely hate getting into this stuff, because as a whole, Marines are so brainwashed and filled with a skewed view of history, that they will never acknowledge the failings in their organization, and only thru gritted teeth will they acknowledge the accomplishments of its sister services.
I often here comments such as Biglee's, or "traditionally the Marines get the hardest missions" really? Tell that to...
The Army that crossed the Potomac
Any number of Cav units taming the west
DoLittle and his men
The Rangers at point du Hoc
The Rangers that rescued the survivors of the Battan death march
The Paratroopers that jumped into occupied territory the night of 5Jun44
The Paratroopers that jumped into occupied territiory on 17Sep44, (anyone mis that anniversary)
The Paratroopers that held the line at the battle of the bulge
and on and on.
That Army Generals, can recognize the accomplishments of the USMC, and question the ability of its own Army, is as much politics as anything, besides Soldiers have always been more willing to question its own, unlike Marines who almost always seem to be mindless zealots, who believe the USMC can do no wrong.
I once had a discussion with a "bulk fuels distribution expert" about the propper TO&E of a Parachute Infantry Regiment, I was a SSG in the 82nd at the time, but apparently PFC Schmucatelly knew better about the Airborne then me w/ 9 years on status and 80+ jumps, did!!!!
As recently as yesterday, a young former Marine I work with, told me he never heard of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier! Another had no idea of The Old Guard. I bet if it was the Tomb of the Unknown Marine, or guarded by the USMC, he would've known.
"gaggle of individuals"?? where'd that come from, I never served as an individual, was never taught that, or believed it. That the Army and its Soldiers derives its Esprit de Corp from units and not the Army as a whole, is only patially correct, and so what of it? The Army has many legendary units, that fought many legendary battles, why would you not be proud of that?
Oh no, I've disrespected your Corp, big deal, Marines disrespect other services all the time.
Don't capitolize Marine, and the author will be the victim of an onslaught of corrections, and other attacks. Yet, they routinely fail to capitolize Soldier, Airmen, Sailor, Army, Navy, Air Force.
Gimme a break with all this crap already.
And, before you think it, yes, I've said it to numerous Marines faces, and I'll gladly say it to any Marines face here.
Get over yourself.
Bob
So your entire "myth" argument comes down to just this? Please humor me, just what is the myth of the Marine rifleman?
The myth is that the USMC is the only elite force in the US military and is infallible. It's indoctrinated into Marines at the MCRD apparently.
As to the myth of the Marine rifleman, we are often told stories about Belleau Wood (where Marines were commanded by an Army officer) and that the USMC values marksmanship above most other attributes. The fact is that without wind flags a Marine doesn't have the range attributed to him, or didn't until the Marine Corps left the cult of the iron sights and moved into the 21st century with the RCO. Recently the USMC had to update its marksmanship instruction to reflect reality.
Personally I think we ought to give the ABN to the USMC and let them be the national QRF and fight small wars like they wrote the book on in the interbellum, and rebuild the Army's heavy brigades.
theblackknight
09-18-10, 16:29
.
I absolutely hate getting into this stuff, because as a whole, Marines are so brainwashed and filled with a skewed view of history, that they will never acknowledge the failings in their organization, and only thru gritted teeth will they acknowledge the accomplishments of its sister services.
That Army Generals, can recognize the accomplishments of the USMC, and question the ability of its own Army, is as much politics as anything, besides Soldiers have always been more willing to question its own, unlike Marines who almost always seem to be mindless zealots, who believe the USMC can do no wrong.
THIS^^^^^.
Just read my sig. When you have airwinger retards trying to tell you they are better then Green Barets and Navy Seals, you know something fishy is going on.
RogerinTPA
09-18-10, 17:28
Some of you Marines need to put the F'in crack pipe down, and join the rest of us in reality.
I absolutely hate getting into this stuff, because as a whole, Marines are so brainwashed and filled with a skewed view of history, that they will never acknowledge the failings in their organization, and only thru gritted teeth will they acknowledge the accomplishments of its sister services.
I often here comments such as Biglee's, or "traditionally the Marines get the hardest missions" really? Tell that to...
The Army that crossed the Potomac
Any number of Cav units taming the west
DoLittle and his men
The Rangers at point du Hoc
The Rangers that rescued the survivors of the Battan death march
The Paratroopers that jumped into occupied territory the night of 5Jun44
The Paratroopers that jumped into occupied territiory on 17Sep44, (anyone mis that anniversary)
The Paratroopers that held the line at the battle of the bulge
and on and on.
That Army Generals, can recognize the accomplishments of the USMC, and question the ability of its own Army, is as much politics as anything, besides Soldiers have always been more willing to question its own, unlike Marines who almost always seem to be mindless zealots, who believe the USMC can do no wrong.
I once had a discussion with a "bulk fuels distribution expert" about the propper TO&E of a Parachute Infantry Regiment, I was a SSG in the 82nd at the time, but apparently PFC Schmucatelly knew better about the Airborne then me w/ 9 years on status and 80+ jumps, did!!!!
As recently as yesterday, a young former Marine I work with, told me he never heard of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier! Another had no idea of The Old Guard. I bet if it was the Tomb of the Unknown Marine, or guarded by the USMC, he would've known.
"gaggle of individuals"?? where'd that come from, I never served as an individual, was never taught that, or believed it. That the Army and its Soldiers derives its Esprit de Corp from units and not the Army as a whole, is only patially correct, and so what of it? The Army has many legendary units, that fought many legendary battles, why would you not be proud of that?
Oh no, I've disrespected your Corp, big deal, Marines disrespect other services all the time.
Don't capitolize Marine, and the author will be the victim of an onslaught of corrections, and other attacks. Yet, they routinely fail to capitolize Soldier, Airmen, Sailor, Army, Navy, Air Force.
Gimme a break with all this crap already.
And, before you think it, yes, I've said it to numerous Marines faces, and I'll gladly say it to any Marines face here.
Get over yourself.
Bob
Agreed Bob.
My circle of friends are mostly Marines and they will go on and on and on like they have a "S" on their chest and a flowing red cape. We are all retire field grade types and I have to remind them that in the first gulf war, Army Logistics had to provide for them with ammo, food and water when their forward units were starving to death when their service couldn't provide for them. A friend in the first gulf war verified the claim, saying he and his men's skin was turning ash gray due to malnourishment and borderline starvation. We heard rumors about while we were there, so when we flew back from a mission where we still had ammo and MREs, we found the nearest forward Marine unit and landed next to them to off load our belt fed, water and MREs and they were very grateful for it. Fast forward to OIF years later, same thing happens again. Another Marine friend who commanded a LAV Company had to get ammo and food from, you guessed it, Army Logistics, also had to offer convoy protection to Army Log units for food and water. He also had to barter with Beduins for food. Couldn't get tires for his LAVs for months. Those very same incompetent commanders got showered with medals and promotions for letting there people starve with no ammo, in both wars. I hate to dog pile on brother Marines, but most will recognize a problem but won't do anything about it, then offer counter arguments on how ****ed up the Army is. Your enemy is too much pride, which makes you gloss over mistakes, critical errors and leadership failures. It gets in the way of true reality and won't allow you to make adjustments where it really matters, proper leadership (learning from your failures) and taking care of your troops.
DaBears_85
09-18-10, 18:44
We all have our own jobs and we do them with pride, hopefully. Every single person, no matter what branch of service or MOS should hold their head up high, because we all play a part in making up the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. Those are just the basic facts, everything else is nothing more than a dick wagging contest.
Submariner
09-18-10, 19:47
Oh no, I've disrespected your Corp, big deal, Marines disrespect other services all the time.
Don't capitolize Marine, and the author will be the victim of an onslaught of corrections, and other attacks. Yet, they routinely fail to capitolize Soldier, Airmen, Sailor, Army, Navy, Air Force.
Notably, Pat Rogers used to do that (and probably still does.) Today he does, however, capitalize "Soldier", "Sailor" and "Airman" as well on LF.
Capitalizing "Soldier", "Sailor" and "Airman" is a recent phenomenon, though. As late as 2005, Joe Galloway of Ia Drang Valley fame, failed to capitalize "soldier." He, no Marine, wrote:
For those who wonder how much longer the war might continue, Army chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said he's now planning rotations of soldiers and Marines four years out -- 2007 to 2009, should they still be needed then.
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Galloway_082505,00.html
New traditions take a while to be accepted, if ever. The Marines have been doing it for quite a while. Harry Truman, ex-Captain of Artillery, explains how:
The Marine Corps is the Navy’s police force and as long as I am president that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin’s.
—President Harry S Truman, 29 Aug. 1950 letter to Congressman Gordon L. McDonough replying to his 21 Aug. 1950 suggestion that the Marine Corps be entitled to full recognition as a major branch of the armed forces.
BTW, Corp is an abbreviation for "corporation" or, alternatively, corporal. Did General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur refer to "the Corp, the Corp, the Corp" or "the Corps, the Corps, the Corps" when referring to The Long Gray Line during his Farewell Address at West Point? You know, The Corps of Cadets? Would you disrespect your own tribe when you spell it "Corp"?
I listen vainly for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield.
But in the evening of my memory, always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes Duty, Honor, Country.
Today marks my final roll call with you, but I want you to know that when I cross the river my last conscious thoughts will be of The Corps, and The Corps, and The Corps. I bid you farewell.
Hell, MacArthur even capitalized the "T" in "The Corps"...
I absolutely hate getting into this stuff, because as a whole, Marines are so brainwashed and filled with a skewed view of history, that they will never acknowledge the failings in their organization, and only thru gritted teeth will they acknowledge the accomplishments of its sister services.
I liked working alongside Army Rangers. They do good work and have a heritage to be proud of. They'd make good Marines if they had a little more discipline.
Agreed Bob.
My circle of friends are mostly Marines and they will go on and on and on like they have a "S" on their chest and a flowing red cape. We are all retire field grade types and I have to remind them that in the first gulf war, Army Logistics had to provide for them with ammo, food and water when their forward units were starving to death when their service couldn't provide for them. A friend in the first gulf war verified the claim, saying he and his men's skin was turning ash gray due to malnourishment and borderline starvation. We heard rumors about while we were there, so when we flew back from a mission where we still had ammo and MREs, we found the nearest forward Marine unit and landed next to them to off load our belt fed, water and MREs and they were very grateful for it. Fast forward to OIF years later, same thing happens again. Another Marine friend who commanded a LAV Company had to get ammo and food from, you guessed it, Army Logistics, also had to offer convoy protection to Army Log units for food and water. He also had to barter with Beduins for food. Couldn't get tires for his LAVs for months. Those very same incompetent commanders got showered with medals and promotions for letting there people starve with no ammo, in both wars. I hate to dog pile on brother Marines, but most will recognize a problem but won't do anything about it, then offer counter arguments on how ****ed up the Army is. Your enemy is too much pride, which makes you gloss over mistakes, critical errors and leadership failures. It gets in the way of true reality and won't allow you to make adjustments where it really matters, proper leadership (learning from your failures) and taking care of your troops.
Dude, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MARINE CORPS. I'm sure you think you know what your talking about but sadly... YOU DONT.
So, according to your twisted perception of the Marine Corps, we went into Desert Storm with Vietnam era M-60 tanks when the army was on its second itineration of the M1 due to a faulty command structure???? That we received the decade plus old, beat up army hand me downs m1a1's while the army was issued brand spanking new m1a2's to go into battle is a fault of Marine Commanders???? WOW..what an utter lack of understanding and total ignorance on how underfunded the Marine Corps is compared to the other services. (as I stated in my original post). The Marine Corps has alot less Generals at the table representing them than the army does.
As for chest thumping Marines, you guys have to understand that alot of idiots sign up for the Corps, go admin pogue and then run home telling everyone that'll listen that they some badass Recon Marine. They are clowns and a black eye on the Corps. I dont know what the percentages are of grunt to support units but it could be as high as 10 to 1. Marine Corps grunts arent big mouths. Hell, I hardly ever tell anyone I was a Marine Corps Grunt.
As for the Army, I respect them. Hell I almost joined the AFTER leaving the Corps. I was so frustrated with the shitty, 20 year old equipment in the Corps, I figured I'd go where the money was. Well, life got in the way and I never re-entered the military but I'd gladly serve in an SF unit.( I actually think the SF units like serving with Marine Corps grunts. I served with SF units over seas and we all had a great working relationship. They were excellent soldiers. We respected them and they us. ).
As for Marines being brainwashed in boot camp, so untrue. We were merely taught the history of the Corps and to appreciate its traditions. I've had army soldiers come and tell me that they wish the army would have done the same thing.
Oh and one more thing, as for Al Anbar province, the reason the Marines were put there in the first place is because it was totally out of control when the army was there. I think we replaced the 82nd AB. Not positive on the unit but the army was there and wasn't getting the job done. Dont get your panties in a bunch, just stating fact, like the Army Generals.:D
RWK,
See what I mean! Marines would make good Rangers, if they were better, getting on jump status would be a good start!:D
Biglee,
-Again, a skewed view of history. I know paratroopers that were in Fallujah, and Al Anbar(including my best friend of over 20 years) they tell a much different story, as does the official record of the Army center for lessons learned. Thats a fact.
-Most Soldiers don't know their history, and really don't care. They're to busy doing their job. While it nice to know, and eventually you'll learn your units history, if you wanna be promoted, its not all that important.
-To be sure, I work with alot of former Marines, some of them are great guys, who, suprizingly, will tell you of the USMC BS, and confirm the "brainwashing".
On capitalizing,
when I was a young Soldier, we were actually taught not to do it, as it was considered egotistical and unprofessional. We were supposed to follow the example of "Quiet Professional"
That I failed to spell Corps correctly, is more a matter of my poor typing skills then and intentional disrespect.
Bob
RWK,
See what I mean! Marines would make good Rangers, if they were better, getting on jump status would be a good start!:D
Ha! That's the spirit, Bob! We'll make a Marine out of you yet.
Speaking of jump status -- when I was once up for reenlistment, the career planner dangled jump school in front of me as incentive to reenlist. I asked him what I'd done to deserve such treatment. He asked me what I meant, to which I replied: "why would you send me to live with the Army?!". :haha:
Matt Edwards
09-19-10, 10:07
EDIT-
It's all about "qualifications and capabilities." The rest is just talk.
variablebinary
09-19-10, 13:18
The Army will never understand the Marines, nor the Airforce the Navy.
Pfft. Someone isn't paying attention
Marines are obnoxious, with a distorted recollection of events that makes me wonder how they get real AAR's
Air Force are pampered babies. Even PJ's stay at the Marriott.
Navy: "It's not gay if you don't make eye contact"
Army is a fat camp for kids too scared to be Marines. Just ask any Marine, and they will confirm this.
Army is a fat camp for kids too scared to be Marines. Just ask any Marine, and they will confirm this.
Are you asking...? :sarcastic:
Specifically, though, the myth of the Marine Rifleman is overblown.
I don't think that the myth aspect of it is overblown enough.
It shuould be a 144pt print full-page ad on the front of the NY Times that the Corps has turned its back on what should be a core discipline and might possibly deserve to be absorbed into the Army if it's not going to try and keep up prior, higher standards. If that's what it takes to embarrass the political whores (heretofore known as "generals") enough to actualy do something about it, it's worth the outrage it'd cause.
Screw the EFV. General Dynamics is an Army-specific company, and it shows in the way that thing's hull is built (my first DoD contracting gig). Money better spent on flattening all on-base golf and paintball courses, turning them into ranges, and buying the 10k rounds/man it'd take to turn all Marines into vaguely competent riflemen.
variablebinary
09-19-10, 17:20
Money better spent on flattening all on-base golf and paintball courses, turning them into ranges, and buying the 10k rounds/man it'd take to turn all Marines into vaguely competent riflemen.
Amen, brother. The same is true for the army. My unit is allocated a pitiful amount of ammo a year for qual and that's it. It wouldn't even be enough ammo to fill a chest rig, yet my team will get attached to door kickers and trigger pullers when activated.
If I didn't train on my own, on my own dime, there would be no way in hell I would be proficient enough to not potentially be a detriment to everyone around me when it all goes to hell.
Cincinnatus
09-20-10, 09:07
OP, can you do Mr. Gates job better than he can?
Modern anti-ship missiles make contested landings difficult. Yet if the USMC is to be used on land in an identical role as the Army, what is the point of having it? It is time for some soul searching. Some of you guys need to think outside the box.
.
In fact, the USMC has ALWAYS been used on land alongside the Army, not just recently, and this has been a good thing. This notion that this is only since WWII is BS. Again, quoting from the Marine Officer's Guide:
"one of the most important statutory – and traditional – functions of the Marine Corps has been and still is to perform “such other duties as the President may direct.”
"The campaign in Korea, in which the 1st Marine Division and the 1st Marine Air Wing are presently participating, can hardly be called a naval mission. Practically every war involving the United States has found the Marine Corps performing duties other than naval. Indeed, the first two battalions of Marines raised in this country were raised specifically for service before Boston with George Washington’s army.
Many Marine activities in the War of 1812 involved only land fighting; in the 1840’s the Marines saw “the Halls of Montezuma” while fighting with the Army in the War with Mexico; in the early 1900’s Marine activities in Central America were repeatedly entirely of a land nature; their participation in the fighting in the Boxer Uprising in China in 1900 likewise was of a land nature; certainly when in May 1917 President Wilson ordered the 4th Marine Brigade to serve as part of the Army’s 2d Division in the Battles of Belleau Wood, Aisne-Marne, St. Mihiel, Blanc Mont, and Meuse-Argonne, and later in the occupation forces, these can hardly be described as naval missions; nor can the activities of Marine Maj. Gen. John A. Lejeune, in commanding for a time the Army’s 2d Division in France, be called a naval function; nor could the service of Marine aviation in France during 1918 be accurately termed a naval activity.
"It is difficult to see how the sending of Marines as the initial force to hold Iceland prior to the last war, until relieved by Army troops, could accurately be called a naval mission; how the reinforcing of Corregidor by the 4th Marine Regiment sent from China just before war broke out, could accurately be termed a naval action; and if the actions of the 1st Marine Division on Guadalcanal, commencing the first American attack of the war on August 7, 1942, can accurately be called a naval action, then in the same fashion the activities of Army divisions in this area must likewise be so termed. It further is worthy of note that on Mindanao and Luzon in the Phillippines, in the last ground action against the enemy in World War II, Marine Air Groups 12, 14, 24, and 32, gave close air support to the 24th, 31st, and 41st Infantry Divisions – an activity that appears to the committee to be only distantly related (if at all) to exclusively naval activities.
"The Committee must also call attention to the fact that, after V-J Day, the V Amphibious Corps, USMC, was part of the forces sent to occupy the Japanese Home Islands; the III Marine Amphibious Corps was sent to North China to accept the surrender of Japanese troops there; that a Marine division, with other forces, was kept in China until the Spring of 1947 during the attempt of the United States to settle civil war between the Chinese Government and Chinese Communists. It is a strained construction, indeed, of military activities to characterize such employment of the United States Marines as essentially naval in character."
Cincinnatus
09-20-10, 09:13
double tap..
Cincinnatus
09-20-10, 10:58
double tap due to strange "database error"
Cincinnatus
09-20-10, 15:17
Another point is, that whether it is time to see about changing the Corps or not, it is Congress who by law must do so, due to the Douglas-Mansfield Act of 1952, NOT the DOD on a unilateral basis. For the DOD to change the mission of the Corps, it must first have new legislation from Congress because that mission is defined and protected by a LAW, not just a policy. To otherwise is to make an endrun around the law, but then this administration does that on a regular basis so no surprise there.
RogerinTPA
09-20-10, 15:45
Dude, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MARINE CORPS. I'm sure you think you know what your talking about but sadly... YOU DONT.
So, according to your twisted perception of the Marine Corps, we went into Desert Storm with Vietnam era M-60 tanks when the army was on its second itineration of the M1 due to a faulty command structure???? That we received the decade plus old, beat up army hand me downs m1a1's while the army was issued brand spanking new m1a2's to go into battle is a fault of Marine Commanders???? WOW..what an utter lack of understanding and total ignorance on how underfunded the Marine Corps is compared to the other services. (as I stated in my original post). The Marine Corps has alot less Generals at the table representing them than the army does.
As for chest thumping Marines, you guys have to understand that alot of idiots sign up for the Corps, go admin pogue and then run home telling everyone that'll listen that they some badass Recon Marine. They are clowns and a black eye on the Corps. I dont know what the percentages are of grunt to support units but it could be as high as 10 to 1. Marine Corps grunts arent big mouths. Hell, I hardly ever tell anyone I was a Marine Corps Grunt.
As for the Army, I respect them. Hell I almost joined the AFTER leaving the Corps. I was so frustrated with the shitty, 20 year old equipment in the Corps, I figured I'd go where the money was. Well, life got in the way and I never re-entered the military but I'd gladly serve in an SF unit.( I actually think the SF units like serving with Marine Corps grunts. I served with SF units over seas and we all had a great working relationship. They were excellent soldiers. We respected them and they us. ).
As for Marines being brainwashed in boot camp, so untrue. We were merely taught the history of the Corps and to appreciate its traditions. I've had army soldiers come and tell me that they wish the army would have done the same thing.
Oh and one more thing, as for Al Anbar province, the reason the Marines were put there in the first place is because it was totally out of control when the army was there. I think we replaced the 82nd AB. Not positive on the unit but the army was there and wasn't getting the job done. Dont get your panties in a bunch, just stating fact, like the Army Generals.:D
Agreed, I don't. I know what I'm talking about because I have seen it with my own eyes and have Marine friends who will attest to the fact that they were starving to death in the most forward deployed units. The rest of your post has nothing to do with what I've posted, so get a grip.
RogerinTPA
09-20-10, 15:59
Dude, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MARINE CORPS. I'm sure you think you know what your talking about but sadly... YOU DONT. Agreed, and probably never will. As far as you assertion is concerned, I saw what I posted with my own eyes and have Marine friends to collaborate what they experienced.
[QUOTE] So, according to your twisted perception of the Marine Corps, we went into Desert Storm with Vietnam era M-60 tanks when the army was on its second itineration of the M1 due to a faulty command structure???? That we received the decade plus old, beat up army hand me downs m1a1's while the army was issued brand spanking new m1a2's to go into battle is a fault of Marine Commanders???? WOW..what an utter lack of understanding and total ignorance on how underfunded the Marine Corps is compared to the other services. (as I stated in my original post). The Marine Corps has alot less Generals at the table representing them than the army does. WTF??? Bubba, you need to put that crack pipe down. I never made that assertion, but I know what you're talking about.
As for chest thumping Marines, you guys have to understand that alot of idiots sign up for the Corps, go admin pogue and then run home telling everyone that'll listen that they some badass Recon Marine. They are clowns and a black eye on the Corps. I dont know what the percentages are of grunt to support units but it could be as high as 10 to 1. Marine Corps grunts arent big mouths. Hell, I hardly ever tell anyone I was a Marine Corps Grunt.
Agreed, as none of my former Marine friends were grunts.
As for the Army, I respect them. Hell I almost joined the AFTER leaving the Corps. I was so frustrated with the shitty, 20 year old equipment in the Corps, I figured I'd go where the money was. Well, life got in the way and I never re-entered the military but I'd gladly serve in an SF unit.( I actually think the SF units like serving with Marine Corps grunts. I served with SF units over seas and we all had a great working relationship. They were excellent soldiers. We respected them and they us. ).
As for Marines being brainwashed in boot camp, so untrue. We were merely taught the history of the Corps and to appreciate its traditions. I've had army soldiers come and tell me that they wish the army would have done the same thing.
I never said that.
Oh and one more thing, as for Al Anbar province, the reason the Marines were put there in the first place is because it was totally out of control when the army was there. I think we replaced the 82nd AB. Not positive on the unit but the army was there and wasn't getting the job done. Dont get your panties in a bunch, just stating fact, like the Army Generals.:D
Again, WTF? I never commented on this issue.
You flew off the handle without reading or understanding what I said. which is what my Marine friends do all the time.:lol:
...the battle for Fallujah...When NO-ONE else can handle the job, send in the Marines.
Feel free to read up on the order of battle, come back and apologise to my friends that were attached to 2/7 CAV. The pride in your branch should stop short of disrespecting members of another branch who actually fought in Fallujah.
RogerinTPA
09-20-10, 17:25
Dude, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MARINE CORPS. I'm sure you think you know what your talking about but sadly... YOU DONT.
Actually I do doctrinally, it's the unnecessary larger that life EGO, selective memory, and distorted facts that they spew, that I don't understand.
So, according to your twisted perception of the Marine Corps, we went into Desert Storm with Vietnam era M-60 tanks when the army was on its second itineration of the M1 due to a faulty command structure???? That we received the decade plus old, beat up army hand me downs m1a1's while the army was issued brand spanking new m1a2's to go into battle is a fault of Marine Commanders???? WOW..what an utter lack of understanding and total ignorance on how underfunded the Marine Corps is compared to the other services. (as I stated in my original post). The Marine Corps has alot less Generals at the table representing them than the army does.
WTF??? Go take your Meds...I never said that, and I am well aware of the Corps underfunded status.
As for chest thumping Marines, you guys have to understand that alot of idiots sign up for the Corps, go admin pogue and then run home telling everyone that'll listen that they some badass Recon Marine. They are clowns and a black eye on the Corps. I dont know what the percentages are of grunt to support units but it could be as high as 10 to 1. Marine Corps grunts arent big mouths. Hell, I hardly ever tell anyone I was a Marine Corps Grunt.
Agreed, as my Marine friends are not Infantryman.
As for the Army, I respect them. Hell I almost joined the AFTER leaving the Corps. I was so frustrated with the shitty, 20 year old equipment in the Corps, I figured I'd go where the money was. Well, life got in the way and I never re-entered the military but I'd gladly serve in an SF unit.( I actually think the SF units like serving with Marine Corps grunts. I served with SF units over seas and we all had a great working relationship. They were excellent soldiers. We respected them and they us. ).
As for Marines being brainwashed in boot camp, so untrue. We were merely taught the history of the Corps and to appreciate its traditions. I've had army soldiers come and tell me that they wish the army would have done the same thing.
Again, WTF are you talking about? I never said that.
Oh and one more thing, as for Al Anbar province, the reason the Marines were put there in the first place is because it was totally out of control when the army was there. I think we replaced the 82nd AB. Not positive on the unit but the army was there and wasn't getting the job done. Dont get your panties in a bunch, just stating fact, like the Army Generals.:D
Again, WTF??? I never said anything about that.
You have proven our point.... going off half cocked, without listening to what was actually said, or who said it.... just like my Marine friends.:p
None of this pissing match has anything to do with the fact that the entire military needs to change to meet the projected future threat. There is nothing more and nothing less going on here, missions change all the time on the ground. Thinking that warfighting has not changed enough in 60 years to require re-thinking the strategic mission of each branch is naive.
Cincinnatus
09-21-10, 14:27
Two updates on this situation.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/09/navy_dept_s_work_the_marines_will_retain_amphibious_assault_capabilities
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/08/marine-corps-says-damn-the-gra/
Cincinnatus
09-21-10, 14:36
A few more updates:
http://www.stripes.com/news/gates-time-has-come-to-re-examine-future-of-marine-corps-1.114465
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072905006.html
William B.
09-21-10, 14:53
This thread is like the graffiti in the port-o-jons at Camp Ramadi.
I've worked with some outstanding Soldiers and have some good friends who joined the Army. I've also been around some total dipsticks in the Army. Same with the Corps.
Belmont31R
09-21-10, 16:05
Notice when most Marine's talk about Fallujah they always fail to mention the numerous Army units that were also there, and take complete credit away from their fellow soldiers in arms. They have done the same thing with the Pacific in WW2. Little facts like both the Army and Navy lost more men in the Pacific than the Marine's did nor the fact that many Army units also participated in the island hopping campaigns. I don't post that as a jab at anyone but I give credit where credit is due.
2nd Battle of Fallujah participating Army units:
Company C, 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, (US Army)
2nd Platoon, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry (US Army)
Task Force 2-2
* 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment (US Army) (Mechanized)
* 2nd Platoon, Alpha company, 82nd Engineer Battalion
* F Troop, 4th Cavalry (Brigade Reconnaissance Troop)
* 2nd Battalion, 63rd Armored Regiment
F Troop 4th Cavalry 3rd Brigade Reconnaissance Troop 1st Infantry Division (US Army)
2nd Platoon, C Company, 44th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (US Army)
2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (US Army)
* 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry (US Army)
* A Troop 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry (US Army)
* 3rd Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment (US Army)
* 759th Military Police Battalion Composite (US Army)
* 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion
* 15th Forward Support Battalion
* 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division TAC(Bravo Company, 13th Signal, E-31; Bravo Company, 312th Military Intel)
1st Squadron, 124th Cavalry, 36th Infantry Division (US Army)
* CROWS Team One
US Army Special Operations Command (embedded)
The Marine's are better at quickly deploying to an area, amphib assaults, and then getting out of the area. The Army is much better at large scale protracted engagements, better at supply, logistics, ect over longer distances and time. The Marine's also have no large scale airborne assets, and each branch has their own purposes. Different tools in our countries tool box. It would be impossible for the Marine's to do anything like the 173rd Airborne jump into northern Iraq in March of 2003.
I've talked quite a bit about this with my best friend who is currently a Sgt in the Marine's, deployed to both OIF and OEF, and is currently going through the mustang program to become an officer. He was led to believe the Pacific in WW2 was just a Marine operation, and that there were very few Army personnel there. He was never taught there were Army units on Guadalcanal for instance or that there was even such a large Army presence in the Pacific at all, really.
Each branch can point to highlights, and say that makes them better or whatever the **** they want to conjure up. There are things one branch can do another cannot do, and some overlap in the middle. Bashing one because they are designed to do something different is ****ing retarded. Does the Air Force suck because they don't patrol blue water seas? No. Do the Marine's suck because they don't have people down in tubes with buttons that launch nuclear missiles?
That is why the Marine's are attached at the hip to the Navy, and the Army is attached to the Air Force. You can even go back, and look at WW2 poster things, and the Marine's were called "Sea Soldiers" in several of them that Ive seen. After the WW2 era ambib operations were pretty much handed over to the Marine's, and the air was left to the Army. Prior to that the Army had ambib operations in North Africa, Italy, and France. I may be wrong on this (don't think I am) but the Marine's have never had any significant airborne capability.
If you want to talk about the Marine's being underfunded you guys need to look at your own leadership as well as the DOD who has spent around $30 billion just on the Osprey program which to date has basically added very little overall capability to our forces. That may prove different in the future but it has been an extremely costly program that may end up going nowhere.
theblackknight
09-21-10, 17:50
I don't think that the myth aspect of it is overblown enough.
It shuould be a 144pt print full-page ad on the front of the NY Times that the Corps has turned its back on what should be a core discipline and might possibly deserve to be absorbed into the Army if it's not going to try and keep up prior, higher standards. If that's what it takes to embarrass the political whores (heretofore known as "generals") enough to actualy do something about it, it's worth the outrage it'd cause.
Screw the EFV. General Dynamics is an Army-specific company, and it shows in the way that thing's hull is built (my first DoD contracting gig). Money better spent on flattening all on-base golf and paintball courses, turning them into ranges, and buying the 10k rounds/man it'd take to turn all Marines into vaguely competent riflemen.
You see the latest marine times jim?
John_Wayne777
09-21-10, 18:47
Dude, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MARINE CORPS. I'm sure you think you know what your talking about but sadly... YOU DONT.
While your esprit de corps is admirable, your method of expressing it is sub-optimal.
Please knock this nonsense off.
The last thing we need is inter-service rivalries turning into mudslinging.
The bottom line is that there has been lots of ass kicked in the course of our nation's history and that lots of boots have been involved in doing the kicking.
variablebinary
09-22-10, 00:26
I've always viewed the Marines as the the USA's shock troopers. They can get there fast, kick the shit out of you, and get out before being drawn into something bigger. Their doctrine, training and "personality molding" process seem to fit that purpose well.
For skirmishes and flareups, it makes much more sense to let the Marines handle it.
It just so happens that between Afghanistan and Iraq, we need all hands on deck, so there will be inevitable overlap between the Army and Marines.
Some people here seem to think that Gates will cut the Marine Corps. He will not. He does intend, however, to examine what role the USMC will play in future conflicts and then they can be trained and equipped to suit.
Because the Marine Corps has been used in the same places and with the same mission as the Army, much of the equipment and training has merged. The USMC without rapid deployability is basically an Army unit with a few differences.
The Corps needs to shrink. It is about 12.5 percent larger than it was five years ago and some of the Staff NCOs that I've talked to have seen the difference in the quality of recruit.
The truth of the matter is that the USMC cherry picks recruits that the Army can't get. Once you get big enough you need waivers, just like we do. A small Marine Corps is a happy one. The Royal Marines have just over 20,000 Marines.
As for winfield's assertion that we may one day be called upon as a nation to conduct opposed amphibious assaults is somewhat far fetched. An opponent that can afford to fight us will probably have enough Kornets to kill the landing craft as they approach the shore. That is why the USMC is investing in the ability to assault over the beach.
Winfield goes on to assert that the Marines have always performed the same roles as the Army. That is simply not the case. For most of their history they were used as raiders and security forces by the Navy. They handled small wars while the Army trained for the big ones. That reflects in training, attitudes and equipment. The Marines used against a Russian armored assault would produce no favorable results...
For what it is worth, Todd's posts in this thread deserve to be framed. They are the most illustrative.
In summation, both the Army and the Marine Corps will be altered after this war in order to prepare for the next. As Soldiers and Marines (as applicable) we will salute and carry on.
All is well...
The Royal Marines have just over 20,000 Marines.
That's a bogus comparison. Even within the idiom you're going for, the Royal Marines are not a combined-arms, MAGTF-based organization like the USMC. They're as close to pure infantry as you can get in this day and age of tails that wag dogs.
That said, how great would it be if our Corps went that direction? Never happen, America is too big into the idea of jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none mediocraty to buy off on it....
I'm with you on the smaller Corps idea. All the reasoning I ever saw for the 202k Plus-Up always struck me as nothing more than a money grab. Now that the Corps is at those manning levels....they're STILL ignoring dwell-time policies as badly as the Army ignores them, while there are still people who have yet to set foot OCONUS in a role that isn't an embassy B billet.
While the Corps never went for the massive waiver-free Category 4 shithead grab -- GED-babies, low-category felons, and the like -- the Army has done for the last 3 years under the auspices of manning requirments (following the Chinese proverb of not using the best men for soldiers just as one would not use the best metal for nails), there was a difinitive drop in the quality of personnel recruited. My metric for that is as simple as it is unscientific; I see an assload more of these youngsters walking around base wearing their Air Force Gloves (i.e., hand in their pockets while in uniform).
It's an outrage! :nono:
I agree with you somewhat on the Royal Marines issue, but I think that the MAGTF concept doesn't just set the USMC apart from the Army, but also from other Marines.
I am inclined to think that the Army could hack out about 30% of its personnel and still put as many Infantrymen, tanks, guns, and more in the field. You'd need to cut a lot of senior Officers and then lean out logistics. I have some ideas for leaning them out, but that is beyond the purview of this thread.
You see the latest marine times jim?
Saw the cover at the PX while picking up a 6004-10 leg shroud. I haven't picked up The Marine Corps Enquirer since they replaced the fact-checking staff with retarded rhesus monkeys sometime in late 2007.
Headline's about marksmanship training. Is the article gonna make my blood boil? 'Cuz I haven't been kick-kittens-angry for about 4 days, and I'm kinda jonesing....
Littlelebowski
09-25-10, 16:03
Go to Army Jump School. Watch the Marines that haven't been to the Fleet yet and the new, equivalent Army guys. Then tell me there's no difference.
Go to Army Jump School. Watch the Marines that haven't been to the Fleet yet and the new, equivalent Army guys. Then tell me there's no difference.
I was at Benning last year for a couple weeks of training and saw exactly what you are talking about; you couldn't have made a better, more graphic example of the difference between soldiers and Marines.
Littlelebowski
09-25-10, 16:14
I was at Benning last year for a couple weeks of training and saw exactly what you are talking about; you couldn't have made a better, more graphic example of the difference between soldiers and Marines.
Yup, I graduated Jump in 2000 as a Marine Sgt. It was a noticeable difference between the Marine boots and Army boots.
While your esprit de corps is admirable, your method of expressing it is sub-optimal.
Please knock this nonsense off.
The last thing we need is inter-service rivalries turning into mudslinging.
The bottom line is that there has been lots of ass kicked in the course of our nation's history and that lots of boots have been involved in doing the kicking.
Have you served in either Army or Marine Corps??? Just curious as to where your "sub-optimal" assessment is based??? Is it coming from actual experience in serving our country in either branch of the armed forces that are engaged in this conversation??? Just wondering because your speaking like you know...so again just wondering how one could possibly come to such an "informed" opinion. What I have stated is coming from first hand experience. Is your statement coming from first hand experience??? Just to back up my "experience" is a line of U.S Army Flag Officers.
Theres ZERO mudslinging in my statements. Just FACT. If some people cant handle the truth...TOO BAD. Get over it.
Again, no inter-service rivalry. Just stating facts. "Outsiders" could easily misinterpret the clear presentation of fact as being slanted in one direction or another. Again, thats due to their perception caused from them NEVER being "there". As I have stated clearly (but maybe I have to repeat myself), I have SERVED with SF soldiers overseas in Foward Deployed areas and we had a great WORKING RELATIONSHIP. Is that "sub-optimal"???
Roger, how many times are you going to respond to my one post??? You say things like " I never said that " . Well, who ever said I was addressing you??? I was addressing and responding to the rest of the members involved in this post.
As for Todd K. Thats great that 2/7 cav was involved in Fallujah. To what extent??? To what do I owe an apology for?? Not patting the army boys on the back for cordoning off the city while the Marines went in to do the real work??? What capacity did 2/7 serve. I dont have to read anything nor explain anything about Fallujah and the Marine Corps involvement there because its common knowledge. Explain what 2/7 did and how and maybe I'll give you the atta boy pat on the back you seem to be looking for.
All I have to say is that Roger has totally reinforced what I said in my initial post about the Corps doing "more with less". Your incessant goings on about how Marines had to scrounge around for hand out proves my point to a "T". Thank you Roger.
Littlelebowski
09-25-10, 17:59
bigLee, I know JW777 personally and I can assure that he's just doing his job as a moderator.
USMC Infantry 95-04
Littlelebowski
09-25-10, 18:04
A reading of the Coldest Winter by David Halberstam (http://www.amazon.com/Coldest-Winter-America-Korean-War/dp/1401300529) will really drive home the institutional differences between the Army and the Marine Corps.
A lot of you are getting your panties in a wad over what some individual Marine said to you on liberty or in a bar or something. Flawed reasoning.
My LAR bro JSantoro nailed it when he suggested that the Corps get rid of the POGs like the Royal Marines.
John_Wayne777
09-25-10, 18:27
Have you served in either Army or Marine Corps??? Just curious as to where your "sub-optimal" assessment is based???
It's based on the notion that pissing matches over branch X vs. branch Y are always...I repeat, always....ridiculous, counterproductive, and generally result in nothing but animosity and hurt feelings that don't need to exist. It's based on the reality that your particular tone in posting creates animosity and hurt feelings rather than furthering an intelligent discussion.
So cut it out.
The Corps is a fine organization...and it's possible to express that without being obnoxious about it.
theblackknight
09-25-10, 18:44
My LAR bro JSantoro nailed it when he suggested that the Corps get rid of the POGs like the Royal Marines.
Im a giant POG, and I stand behind this statement.
:rolleyes:
Go to Army Jump School.
I did, in 1987
Watch the Marines that haven't been to the Fleet yet and the new, equivalent Army guys.
I did.
Then tell me there's no difference.
Theres no difference.
I wonder what they thought of you? And the fact that you had to attend an Army school didn't strike you as odd?
Biglee, really dude, get f'in real, already. You cherry pick a few quotes, of which you probably would never have heard of, if your drill sgt. didn't indoctrinate you with them, present them in limited context, and call them facts.:rolleyes: You could be one of those 9/11 conspiracy guys.
Again, I know Paratroopers that were in Fallajah, thye tell a different story.
Bottom line, I've seen and worked with alot of marines, recently seperated, and long past, same with Soldiers, on average, there is not a bit a difference between them.
When you put down the comic books and crack pipes, and pick up a history book, perhaps we can have a intelligent and mature conversation.
Bob
Littlelebowski
09-25-10, 19:10
Bob, I said the above with no malice. We've talked over the Internet a few times, I've never bullshitted you and am not now. Apparently, we had different experiences.
Since you ask what they thought of me, they seemed to think well of me. The Sgt Airbornes leaned heavily on the Marine NCOs because we took charge and each Marine Sgt ended up being their stick NCO. The boot Marines were in better shape, took more pride in their appearance and professional conduct, and were far more motivated. It was obvious that Marine Boot Camp and SOI/MCT were turning out a better product than Army Basic/AIT. The BAC instructors all lamented the quality of the Army boots coming to Jump.
All of this was readily apparent to the unjaundiced eye. The platoon of BUDs graduates there with us commented on it several times.
Littlelebowski
09-25-10, 19:15
Also, the fact that I attended an Army school did not bother me then or now. I'd rather attend the place with the greatest amount of institutional knowledge.
I note that there were Navy and Marine instructors there......
variablebinary
09-25-10, 21:58
The Corps is a fine organization...and it's possible to express that without being obnoxious about it.
I wouldn't be too sure about this.
I wonder what they thought of you? And the fact that you had to attend an Army school didn't strike you as odd?
Because that is where everyone goes to jump school.
I went there in the late 70's and many Army, Navy and foreign service schools over the next 20 years. It was evident until you got to the really high end places like HALO school that most Marines took in stride what an awful lot of Army people thought was really difficult, physically, and mentally. Your average Marine is very motivated, aggressive, and indoctrinated to not give up ever. Also you are a Marine 24 hrs a day. It is a way of life. Not a job. Thats not true for everyone. But that is the predominant theme. The Army is generally not like that. The Marine Corps has plenty of shitheads as well but they tend not to last very long. Recruiting standards are much higher because they can be. It is a smaller service and people join because they want to be in what they perceive as the best. They are generally not looking for job training for when they get out. If they are then thats the wrong service. The Marines also give much more authority and responsibility to lower ranks than the Army. They expect more out of the individual Marine.
Many of those things are not true about the Army. Because they are different organizations who at the heart of things have different missions, equipment, tactics, and resources.
I could never have been in any other service because the entire Marine Corps adheres to a uniformly high standard and the focus is on trigger pullers. Plus I thought chicks would dig me in dress blues. But I was 17 and there was a lot I didn't know about that particular subject.
I said at some point in this thread that the Marine Corps is always evaluating its role, mission, and tactics. Nothing new in that. The amphibious mission is not necessarily sacred and the amphibious mission, equipment, and tactics has changed radically many times and it will change many times more. So why people get their panties in a bunch over some comment Gates did or didn't make or didn't make to their satisfaction makes not a bit of difference. The Marine Corps isn't going anywhere.
“I can never again see a UNITED STATES MARINE without experiencing a feeling of reverence.” GEN. JOHNSON, U.S. ARMY
“There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.” Unknown
“Uncommon valor was a common virtue.”
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
“Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the AMERICAN MARINES.”
CAPTURED NORTH KOREAN MAJOR
“The MARINES have landed and have the situation well in hand!”
RICHARD HARDING DAVIS
If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.
General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea,
overheard and reported by Marine Staff Sergeant Bill Houghton, Weapons/2/5
Do not attack the First Marine Division. Leave the yellowlegs alone. Strike the American Army. Orders given to Communist troops in the Korean War; shortly afterward, the Marines were ordered to not wear their khaki leggings.
The Marine Corps is the Navy’s police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin’s.
Harry S. Truman
“The deadliest weapon in the world is a MARINE and his rifle!”
GEN. PERSHING, US.ARMY
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” GEORGE ORWELL
“A ship without MARINES is like a garment without buttons.” ADM. DAVID PORTER, USN
“The more Marines I have around, the better I like it.”
General Clark, U.S. Army
“No one can say that the Marines have failed to do their work in handsome fashion.”
Major General Hagood, U.S. Army
“There is no military body in our country of higher efficiency than the Marine Corps.
They take great pride in their profession. They never let things slack a bit.”
Rear Admiral C.M. Wilslow, U.S. Navy
“They’re on our right, they’re on our left, they’re in front of us, they’re behind us; they can’t get away from us this time.”
Chesty Puller, USMC, Chosin Reservoir, Korean War
Old breed? New breed? There’s not a damn bit of difference so long as it’s the Marine breed. Chesty Puller, USMC
“Marine Corps integrity is doing that thing which is right, when no one is looking”
Col. Colin Lampard, USMC
Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. All other conditions are secondary
General A. M. Gray, USMC
Ensure that no Marine who honorably wore the eagle, globe and anchor is lost to the Marine Corps family. General James L. Jones Jr., Commandant of the Marine Corps
“They (Marines) have given us our only real fight.” Commanding Officer of the British, War 0f 1812
“The American Marines are terribly reckless fellows… they would make very good storm troopers.” Unidentified German officer at Belleau Wood
The US Air Force Chief-of-Staff would never be called — Airman
The Chief-of-Naval Operations would never be called — Sailor
The Commanding General of The US Army would never be called — Soldier
BUT the Commandant of the Marine Corps would be proud to be called a –
United States Marine
“Marines know how to use their bayonets. Army bayonets may as well be paper-weights.” Navy Times; November 1994
“The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!” Eleanor Roosevelt
“We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.” Gen. James L. Jones, USMC
“My only answer as to why the Marines get the toughest jobs is because the average Leatherneck is a much better fighter. He has far more guts, courage, and better officers… These boys out here have a pride in the Marine Corps and will fight to the end no matter what the cost.” 2nd Lt. Richard C. Kennard, Peleliu, World War II
“It’s a funny thing, but, as years go by, I think you appreciate more and more what a great thing it was to be a United States Marine… People will tell me what a shame it was I had to go back into the service a second time, but I’m kinda glad I did.. Besides, I am a U.S. Marine and I’ll be one till I die.” Ted Williams
The Corps is a fine organization...and it's possible to express that without being obnoxious about it.
BLASPHEMER!!
FOLLOWER OF A FALSE PROPHET!!!
;)
I think we can close this down now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.