Does the Country need a Marine Corps?

Interesting question.

How to Absorb the Marine Corps into the Army and Navy

Does the United States need a light infantry force specializing in amphibious operations as a separate service, or should the Marine Corps be resized to the small police force it was prior to World War I and the amphibious organization incorporated into the Army?

The author of the piece suggests that the Marines become a Corps within the Army force structure, minus it's aviation assets, which would be split between the Army and Navy, and be allowed to continue it's own uniforms and traditions.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. My gut is to leave things the way they are; America wants it's Marines. But I'm also in favor of streamlining and efficiency if it makes sense.

 

I think it's a good idea to divide the military branches. It helps create additional separation of powers.

The Marines tend to focus on specific sorts of situations that require coastal landings or small covert rescue missions.

The Marines are ideally suited for smaller scale missions that require integration of air, water, and ground forces. I think it's best to leave things how they are.

Streamlining and trying to reduce "redundancy" often comes with unforeseen trade-offs.

 

The USMC has the best drill instructors.
Army or navy doesn't have guys like that.

 

I think they would be VERY unhappy if they were incorporated into the Army. The Marines operate under the Navy department, so I don't see how this would be helpful anyway.

The Air Force used to be a part of the Army (The Army Air Force), but now its independent.

 

Yeah I think the Air Force probably should have stayed with the Army.

 

This debate has been going on for over a century now.

And yes, there is a vast difference in how the Marines train, are organized, and operate. And it would not be as simple as just replacing them with the Army.

To begin with, there is the very unit identity. One thing about the Marines, is that the "Everybody is a Marine" is true. You can put 20 Marines in their Dress Blues next to each other, and you will be unable to tell what any of them does. No "Branch Insignia", no "Unit Crests", no "Unit Patches". Their entire identity is "The Corps". There is only one "Song", only one "identity". And that is one that is tied completely with the Navy.

As opposed to the Army. Where you may be expected to know 2-4 different "songs", depending on what unit you are in. And where you can read anybody by their uniform, down to their job and what unit they are in (and served with in combat).

Plus, it is more than just being "amphibious". The very fact of spending 6 months on a ship is something the Army has no experience in. And the equipment, as in addition to operating from landing craft they are also helicopter born. Plus the size of the units. The Army operates generally on Corps levels, and normally talks about deploying in Brigade sized elements. Not Battalion and Company sized. This is a doctrinal difference that is key to how both branches train and operate.

I am unique in that I have served in both. And it goes even deeper than that.

The Air Assets could not be taken by the Army at all, other than a few. None of the Fighters, and once again that is a doctrinal issue.

The Marine Fighter units are all carrier trained, like the Navy. But they are also much more heavily trained in ground support. The Navy can and will do it, but that is actually the main job of the Marine Fighters, the air mission is secondary to that to the Marine Wings aboard a carrier (or on one of the flat top amphibious ships). Then I can see other issues.

The Marines all fall under Naval Regulations, and the parts of the USMJ that apply to the Navy. And they have no clerical or medical personnel, once again all provided by the Navy. So are these new "Army Units" going to bring their own Medics, or continue to use Corpsmen?

Then, the other duties that Marines do. Specifically, Embassy and Consulate security. There are many reasons why the Marines have always done that role. And that the Marines have been the force that Presidents going back over 100 years have normally sent in first, or if the mission was purely one of support and defense. Specifically UN peacekeeping missions. And traditionally, it is the Marines that provide security on ships and Naval bases. That has been reduced in recent decades, but is still a key part of the identity.

One thing that shocks most I know in the Army is I would describe my usual training in 2 years in the Marines, and it shocked them. 3 months in Virginia doing the Amphibious Warfare School. Another 2 months in Panama for Jungle Warfare School. A month in 29 Palms for Desert Warfare, then 3 months in Bridgeport, California and Norway for Arctic Warfare School. And that was pretty much the routine. And always as a Battalion. I think most in the Army would have a meltdown trying to imagine their Battalion being sent off into battle all by itself. Where the largest support they have other than Navy and Marine fighters and shore bombardment are their 81mm mortars. No tanks, and having to march on LPCs everywhere and not hopping in their APCs.

Hell, as much as I have heard "Army Infantry" bragging over the last 14 years, I would love to see how one of their Battalions would fare in a MCCRES (now the MCCRE). I have been in and seen Army units doing "forced marches", and to my eye it was always a fuster cluck. With often maybe a platoon sized "front element", and the rest of a Company scattered for a mile or more behind it. Where as in a Marine Battalion doing the same thing remains as a tight Battalion, with only a handful bringing up the rear (most of those with injuries acquired during the march). For the MCCRE, 20 miles in 8 hours with a full 70 pound combat load is the standard. With no more than 5-10% falling back or the entire Battalion fails. And only at the conclusion of that going immediately into an intense 10 days of wargames in the field.

And that is not just for the "grunts", everybody in the unit from the cooks and paper pushers in admin to supply, corpsmen, and mechanics have to take part, and meet the same standards. Even the Battalion Chaplain is right there, marching along with the rest of the unit.

 

Well, technically true. Since no other branch has "Drill Instructors", they are "Drill Sergeants".

But that is also a large difference. The Marines have the longest boot camp, but once you gradate that you are a "Marine", and treated as such. Where as in the Army you are still essentially a "recruit", and treated as such even into your MOS training. Complete with Drill Sergeants.



These are MOS students at Fort Gordon, not "recruits". And notice, it is a Drill Sergeant leading them. In the Marines, you will only see DIs at the MCRD at San Diego and Paris Island. But the Army uses their DSs until they are finished with their training.

 

I think it makes sense to have a branch thats versatile all on its own- air, infantry, armor and sea. The marines are. I see no reason to change it. I dont see how absoarbing them into the other branches would increase efficiency. Still the same number of personel and equipment, right?

 

The drill sergeant thing after Basic Training is just weird to me. At the time I went from Basic to my (first) MOS training, we had platoon sergeants. Integrating drill sergeants into AIT schools came later, and then they stopped it, and then they started it again...

In my fantasy Army reorganization, I would do away with drill sergeants after Basic, but would also extend Basic to encompass the repetition of individual soldier tasks and vehicle licensing so soldiers would arrive at their units actually useful. Of course I have quite a fantasy Army checklist that's never going to happen, eliminating useless ribbons and medals (why have an Army Service ribbon?), re-adding specialist ranks up to E-6, removing all MI assets back under a reformed Army Security Agency... all things that will never happen.

 

Actually, that would be a bad idea, as they were stripped for a reason. If anything, just get rid of the "Specialist", as it really has watered down the rank, and Corporal is just a "Specialist with an NCOER".

But the Army is a very different beast from the Marines. To be honest, seeing how the Soldiers were treated in MOS school at Fort Bliss was a bit of a shock to me. Thankfully I was considered to be "reclassing", but even then, I was treated better as a Marine at my first MOS school than I was by the Army as one who was supposed to just be reclassing.

To be honest, the culture really does not cross over very well. The Marines really specializes in small unit operations, much more so than the Army ever does. And fosters a culture of taking initiative as well as personal responsibility. In the Army, it always seemed like I had a half-dozen babysitters, or was a babysitter. Where saying things at the Friday end of day formation like "And don't get high on bath salts and go into a liquor store naked" because it happened several times.

One thing that happened in every unit I was ever in, us who were Marines all tended to congregate together and shake our heads at what we had to do then. I knew admin PFCs in the Marines that knew more about "Basic Infantry Tactics" than guys that taught it in the Army. Now to be granted, that is in Medical and Air Defense units, but the point remains. And it explained to me the disaster of 507th Maintenance Company, as even those who had been in for a decade had no more "basic infantry" training than some kid just out of basic training.

Hell, even in boot camp I was taught how to respond to a "close ambush" with "turn and burn". But in the Army, they only teach that to Infantry. When I tried to explain that to my Recon unit in the Army, they all thought I was nuts. I had to pull out the FM 3-21 and show them that was not just a "crazy Marine thing", and we were all taught that in boot camp. And anything more advanced than "fireteam/squad" in line or column is beyond them. Being told that movement to an objective with fireteams in a wedge in a squad wedge was not the "Army Way". Although to give credit, the instructor was an 11B and later pulled me to the side and explained that was the best way and how he would have done it. But in "Basic Combat" training, they did not cover things like that.

But that is the kind of thing that you can "work around" when you are as large as the Army is. Just to give an idea, in 1985 there were 50% more soldiers in Germany than the entire Marine Corps. Including Guard and Reserve, there are 17 Infantry Divisions in the Army (9 active, 8 guard-reserve). And an Armored and Cavalry Division. The entire Marine Corps is 2 Infantry Divisions, 1 "Shadow Division" that is prominently "Command Staff" with few actual people in it, and a Reserve Division. No "armored divisions", each Infantry Division has a Tank Company. This alone makes the branches very different from each other.

Along with the cross-training. For the 14 years I was in the Army, I was only trained in desert operations. Never in any other conditions, just being told I would get other environmental training if I needed it. In the Marines, that was just the norm. 2-3 different environments every year, because we never knew where we might go next. And both Helicopter and Amphibious training constantly. I can see the problems if the Army suddenly had to take over, and to try and operate their Infantry Battalions like the Marines do. Because they really do almost treat them like the Army does Brigades. Largely autonomous, unless it is for the almost rare occasions they operate as a Regiment. Which we might have seen once a year when acting as OPFOR against the Reservists during their 2 week summer drill.

 

I have my reasons for wanting the re-instatement of the Specialist ranks.

1. The soldiers coming in now are very different from the soldiers coming in a generation (my age) ago. Although there were plenty of people then who just wanted to get their college money and get out, there were also plenty of people who were ambitious enough that they wanted to be NCO's. By the time I retired, that group had dwindled to a small trickle. "Up or out" became more demanding in pushing soldiers into promotion boards that they simple were not interested in. This process has created a lot of bad NCO's who were at best indifferent to their responsibilities.

2. I spent my entire career in a support field that required a lot of technical knowledge; knowledge that required years of experience and training to accumulate. NCO duties took these people right out of the technical aspects. Gradually at first but as they moved up, just as they were really reaching the peak of their abilities, there were shunted into NCO tasks. And even people who liked the Army, but liked their jobs more, cashed in and left. We need to retain highly qualified technical experts by giving them a path were they can stay on the MOS side of their job and still advance.

This is all off topic but I've been thinking about this for years.

 

The marines are the first ones in in almost every war. In recent wars it’s been after the Air Force drop some presents though.

 

Sorry, but artistically this is a very lousy performance. The boys just have to sing "Dodododododo". I am shocked!

The Marines have much better songs.

 

But there was also the problem they were not NCOs. You got to Spec 7, then it was a dead end. And you had to return all the way back to Sergeant to move up again.

But the "up and out" is military wide, they simply do not want people spending 20 years as an E-4 or E-5 like it once was. Until a decade or so ago you could spend 20 years as a Sergeant, but not even that is allowed anymore.

The only way to really change that would be to increase the numbers.

 

That's not going to happen with a volunteer Army.

 

Why not? It did before.

Spec-8 and 9 were never awarded, so discontinued in 1968. But Spec-7 was abolished in 1978, and Spec-5 and 6 in 1985. Which upset a lot of people because some had to essentially be demoted to move up again, while those that held the rank when it was abolished just transferred directly over at the same pay grade.

And the end of "Career Sergeant" was only in 2010, when the Obama RIF forced the Army to change their TIG-TIS requirements in order to push out more people. And that is the standard still today.

I actually did an extensive report on this when I was in WLC. And it was rather funny because I was the only one there that had ever seen a Spec-5 and Spec-6.

 

You might have misunderstood me. When I said "That's not going to happen with a volunteer Army" I was referring to your claim that the the Army could solve the issue by increasing their numbers. Since they couldn't solve the Specialist problem with with over three quarters of million soldiers (when I first joined) , I don't think they can do it will less than a half a million personnel ( current size).

 

e.e
The introduction of nuclear weapons made that basically impossible

 

Plus they were going different directions.

The Army wanted their "Air Corps" to concentrate on battlefield bombers and close air support, the Air Corps wanted to make larger and larger bombers, and faster planes to go after other fighters and enemy bombers. CAS had always been a distant third (or forth) as far as the AF is concerned for what their "mission" was. Which is why in the 1950's the Army started to put so much R&D into helicopters, which created a lot of infighting as the AF thought that was "their" territory".

 

That actually hasn’t been true for quite a while now.
Not that that changes the fact that getting rid of the Marine Corps would be a horrible idea.

 

Why so? The Army had nukes for years. In the 1980's I Commanded a nuclear capable M110A2 (8 inch) artillery battery in Babenhausen, Germany.

 

@Lil Mike @Nightmare515

Interesting topic.

I have a different take.

Leave the Marines as they are. There’s nothing like a naval task force containing a battalion of battle ready Marines sitting off your coast to influence your behavior.

What I would like to see is a smaller full time Army. Highly trained, elite, nimble and lethal, with a part of their peacetime mission being to be prepared to enlarge quickly if called upon to do so.

A little off topic, but I would also like to see all service members get paid a LOT more starting at the rank of E-4.

 

The army is getting a lot more nimble as it moves from divisions to Brigade Combat Teams. Easier to deploy. Easier to transport.
One of the problems with your plan is training time. It takes two years to train an Apache pilot, and that's when you start with an experienced helo pilot that has 1,000 hours in other helicopters. Even training an Infantryman can take years considering the sophistication of Bradleys, JAVELINs and such. As individuals and units move through the five phases of training to get certified for combat, it usually takes years to get there. The days of grabbing the flintlock off the mantle and running off to war are long gone.

 

Yes. Good points. When posting off my phone I tend to go light on my thoughts.

My answer to those concerns is to rethink the Army Reserve - grow it, add more training time, and require 2 years of active duty before being eligible for Reserve status.

And this also reminds me why I want those E-4s and above paid a LOT more. They have the skills. We need them in the service. They are the ones who make it work. Man, if it was up to me the pay for an E-4 would be double that of an E-3. The raises from E-5 to E-9 would be big. Seriously big.

My vision of the Army is of well paid career professionals, smaller, elite, the best of the best. Add to that a fully trained, large Reserve force ready to go at a moment’s notice.