Does the Country need a Marine Corps?

I was an E-4. They told me I had no NCO potential, so they made me an Officer.

 

Just to be clear, integrating the Marines into the Army wasn't an idea I supported, but I thought it was an interesting enough topic to post about, and I was open to some convincing arguments to it, although I support leaving the Marine Corps as is largely out of a sentiment I have that tradition is important to esprit de corps. I think those things mean something when you are creating a brotherhood of sorts and asking men to risk their lives.

 

Lol ... I did 3 years active in the Army and was an E-4. I was being used like an E-5 when my time was up.

 

I agree. As you know, my son served in combat in the Marine Corps.

Truth be known, I would like to see the Army be more like the Marine Corps.

 

The Army needs a serious make over.

The amount of radical change since I retired makes me question the fighting ability of the force, regardless of the combat skills of your average combat arms soldier. Our humiliating defeat in Afghanistan makes me question whether we have the leadership to successfully conduct and prosecute any sort of war.

 

I wouldn't. Don't get me wrong, I love the Marine Corps. But in my experience the Army is more capable of operating independently.

Just as an aside, I remember having a huge argument with my father-in-law about leadership. He thought intimidation and threats were valid leadership tools. I didn't.

When I was in Iraq I wanted "Schofield's Definition of Discipline" to be read aloud at the graduation of the Firats Battalion of the NEW Iraqi Army in October 2003. The Marines fought me on it. I won. They thought Schofield's famous quote was just not right.

 

Honestly, I think the Army should go ahead and dump the "Specialist" rank, and return to Corporal.

The problem I think in many areas is that they simply push to much onto Sergeants, as there is really no NCO below them to take up some of the slack. And when compared to the TO&E of the Marines, every position is one rank higher because of that. Team Leaders are Sergeant, Squad Leaders are Staff Sergeant, and Platoon Sergeant is Sergeant First Class (that is TO&E, I am aware that is not often the case in real life). It tends to leave a lot of higher ranking people filling essentially low ranking positions.



In a Marine TO&E Rifle Platoon, the Team Leaders are Corporals. Squad Leaders are Sergeants, and the Platoon Sergeant is a Staff Sergeant. This means ultimately a lot less "excess rank" in the unit. As in the Army, a platoon would have 3 Staff Sergeants, and 6 Sergeants (ignore the top row and the "Weapons Squad"). And more a sense of moving up, as once they make Gunny they essentially leave the Platoon for good, moving up to a Company or Battalion position. It always struck me as odd that in the TO&E Army, somebody can move from a Platoon Sergeant straight into a First Sergeant position with nothing in between.



And one advantage in the Corps I experienced does not even exist in the Army. That is the Company Gunny. In the Army you have the Platoon Sergeants, the First Sergeant, and that is it. But in the Corps, the Gunny really leads the Company most times. He holds the formations, does PT, and gives the marching orders for the day to each Platoon Sergeant. Leaving the Top to handle the administrative side without being pulled two or three directions at once.

I do not joke when I say I had more responsibility as a Corporal in the Marines than I did as a Sergeant in the Army. I had one "well meaning" Sergeant once tell me they were going to "teach me how to be an NCO". And I just laughed inside my head, as I was already an NCO before she even stopped wearing diapers.

 

I agree. My beloved West Point is teaching racist Critical Race Theory. They ran from Afghanistan. They left American citizens and allies to the mercy of the Taliban. There is something seriously wrong.

 

Well okay, but when I say more like the Marines, I’m thinking of things like the following:

Longer, tougher Basic Training
Advanced combat training after Basic, regardless of MOS
More education on Army history to build ...
... More pride and esprit de corps
More ceremony, pomp and circumstance, and symbolism
Higher emphasis on warrior ethos, brotherhood
Smaller, more elite, the best of the best
More like a big family, connected by tradition, history, culture, shared experience, and respect, as opposed to only being connected by the same gigantic bureaucracy.

Things like this is what I mean.

When I graduated from Basic, we got into our uniforms, marched to a field, a General spoke for a few minutes, and it was over. There was no band, no real ceremony, no families. We were ordered to go, so we went.

When my son graduated from Marine boot camp, it took two days. Families were all invited and we were welcomed into the Marine Corps family. The whole process was wrapped in Marine Corps tradition, ceremony, and symbolism. After he was awarded his EGA, my son finally got to be called a Marine, and he was proud of it.

I would like to see the Army be more like that.

 

I belong to a fishing club that operates like that. Its fun. In the army I did things train, shoot at terrorists in places like Ba'aquba, go to the field for months at a time... well... I don't want to make a contest out of this. We're on the same side.

 

Don’t get me wrong. I’m proud of my service. I volunteered in 1974 - a time when military service was disrespected in the post Viet Nam era. I have never regretted my decision and I never will. My Honorable Discharge hangs on the wall in my study. My truck bears a Veteran license plate. I can’t tell you how many times in my lifetime someone has said they wish they had served, but they didn’t. I don’t have to think that. I’ll bet you’ve heard the same thing.
I met and knew some very fine men, brave men, while in the Army, and I did a ton of growing up. At the age of 21, I was supervising a shift of MPs on our base. I had experiences I’ll never forget.

I don’t mean to dump on the Army. It’s just that if I had the power, I would try to make it better.

When were you in Iraq? My son was there in 2007 based out of Camp Fallujah.

 

That is more the main philosophy between the two.

The Army tends to have the emphasis on your branch and unit. Each with their own marches, badges, and the like. In the Marines, the only thing that matters is the Corps. Truck driver, grunt, clerk, you all go through the exact same boot camp, and have the same experience for the first 3-4 months. And unless you are in avionics or combat arms, odds are you will be in several kinds of units during your career.

Every Marine knows the Marine Corps Birthday, and they make a huge event out of it every year. Including a 96 hour pass and the Marine Corps Ball, a formal event for all ranks that has a lot of ceremony and history behind it. In over 5 years in the Active Army, there was not a single "All Ranks" ball. A few for Officers and senior NCOs, where a couple of lower ranks were invited as guests. And nobody really gave a damn about the Army Birthday. Many in the Army can spend 4+ years, and never wear their dress uniform other than maybe a promotion board, and a uniform inspection every year or two.

Heck, I am old enough to remember having to wear "Chucks" (slacks and khaki short sleeve shirt) on Payday. Twice a month, all not on active field training wore their dark green slacks and short sleeve shirt with ribbons. And many in office positions had that as their everyday uniform. I mentioned that a few times in the Army, and they thought it was either the coolest thing they ever heard of, or the dumbest.

 

I understand about the unpopular nature of service in those days. I enlisted in 1970. I went to the US Military Academy Preparatory School (West Point Prep) for a year, then to West Point, so I was never sent to Viet Nam. My first assignment as a young Lieutenant was a Basic Training Company. I remember the tremendous difficulties recruiters had. Between the end of the war and the end of the draft, they had a real hard time.

I loved the Army and still do. I retired in the 1990's but went to Iraq as a civilian. 2003-4 I trained the "NEW Iraqi Army" at Camp Caulfield (KMTB - Kir Kush Military Training Base) on the Iranian border, colocated with 1/10 Cav "Buffalo Soldiers". I went home for awhile but went back 2004-5 to be on staff with a thousand American Firefighters we had all over Iraq headquartered out of Camp Liberty.

I was a Field Artillery Officer in the Army and made some wonderful life long friends... including the Drills that I worked with in my Basic Company at Fort Leonard Wood, and my Battalion Commander at the time, LTC Jim Ellis who went on to be LTG Jim Ellis and Schwartzkopf's XO in Desert Storm. The two of them became fast friends and retired to the Orlando area where they started up a huge charity to take ghetto kids to the country for a camp experience, something you don't hear much about.

 

I have one question. So, assuming the decision was made to disband the Marine Corps... who is the person that gets to break the news?

Volunteers, anyone?

 

The Marines have a unique mission. Its reflected in their training as well as their equipment. Army Armored Personnel Carriers don't float very well... Marine APC's do. Marines don't organize in massive formations like a Corps... the Army does. Bunches of Marines float around with the Navy, ready for instant response. While the Army has a Battalion of paratroopers suited up and ready to go 24/7, the bulk of the Army would take planning and transport and not be so much of an "instant" response.

 

When Al Qaeda hit the U.S. on 9/11, I wanted to rejoin, but I was 47 years old by that time. And in January, 2007, as we said goodbye to our son, knowing we wouldn't see him until he returned from Iraq, I ached to take his place and let him stay home, out of danger. If I could have, I would have.

I did Basic at Ft Ord, CA, and AIT at Ft Gordon, GA (MP school). I was then sent to the 25th ID at Schofield Bks, HI, until my ETS. That's pretty much the story of my Army service. Didn't go to war, no chest full of ribbons. But I did it, and for that 3 year period, I served my country and helped protect her, and I'm proud of that.

Cheers!

 

Very cool. You darn well SHOULD be proud! Three years in "Tropic Lightning"? Wow.. every Soldiers' DREAM! Good for you!

In 2003, as a civilian, I was 51... the oldest "Drill Sergeant" in Iraq until a retired SEAL, even older, joined us. It's been quite a ride!

 

I'm sure it has!

 

Isn't the U.S. Army now moving back to divisions?

 

When the Air Force became an independent branch of the military, heavy bombers were the only way to deliver nuclear weapons.

 

Not to my knowledge. Units moving to support Ukraine are still deploying in Brigade Combat Teams. But I'm not sure what the future holds.

 

Not for long. The Air Force was established as a separate branch in 1947. The Army went nuclear soon thereafter:

• MGR-1 Honest John free flight rocket delivering W7 and later W31 nuclear weapons, 1953–1985.
• M65 Atomic Cannon delivering 280mm W9 and W19 nuclear shells, 1953–1963.
• MGM-5 Corporal missile delivering W7 nuclear weapon, 1955–1964.
• 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun on the Iowa-class battleship delivering 406 mm W23 nuclear shells, 1956–1962.
• PGM-11 Redstone missile delivering the W39 nuclear weapon, 1958-1964
• M110 howitzer and M115 howitzer delivering 203mm W33 nuclear shell, 1957–1992.
• M-28/M-29 Davy Crockett (nuclear device) M-388 warhead derived from W54, 1961–1971.
• MGR-3 Little John free flight rocket delivering W45 nuclear weapon, 1961–1969.
• MGM-18 Lacrosse missile with nuclear warhead, 1959–1964.
• M109 self-propelled, M114 towed howitzers and M198 towed howitzers delivering 155mm W48, 1963–1992.
• MGM-29 Sergeant missile delivering W52 nuclear weapon, 1962–1979.
• MGM-31 Pershing missile delivering W50 nuclear weapon, 1962–1969 for Pershing 1, 1969–1991 for Pershing 1a.
• MGM-52 Lance missile delivering W70 nuclear weapon, 1972–1992.
• M110 howitzer and M115 howitzer delivering 203mm W79 nuclear shell, 1976–1992.
• Pershing II missile delivering W85 nuclear weapon, 1983–1991.

I Commanded a nuke capable M110A2 Battery in Germany 1982-1984. Sadly, Army nukes are all retired now.

 

But the Army went tactical with their weapons, while the Air Force (and Navy) went strategic.

 

There is also a diplomatic element involved.

Internationally, most nations understand that a "Marine Corps" (or "Naval Infantry") is not an "Army". Primarily serving the Navy in areas of taking and securing naval bases, as well as in the case of the US protecting our overseas diplomatic posts. Word going out of a force of Marines to reinforce those if needed diplomatically is less touchy than sending an "Army unit" of similar size, as traditionally "Armies" have been connected with taking over nations.

And for over 2 centuries, the Marine have been doing that job with almost no incidents. And if you take any MEF floating around in sea deployments, at least a handful of them would have already served in that duty in the past, so could quickly fill in any others in their unit what was needed if some were sent to augment such a unit.

Then there is an even more tricky area, as the Marines are not just Infantry. And that is the Air Wings. That becomes an huge mess to try and sort out.

The Marine Corps Air Wings are unlike those of the other services. For starters, all Marine Pilots are also Naval Aviators. Trained to operate on both land and ships. That includes both fixed wing and helicopter assets (as well as the Osprey). The absorb the rotary wing elements the Army will have to still keep them separate, and early on an aviator would have to decide if they want to go the Naval Air route or not. There is simply no capability to add many more from the Army rotary wing to get that kind of training.

Plus even the fixed wing operate uniquely. In this it is closer to the Air Force, in that their primary role is air interdiction and CAS for the Marines on the ground, as well as assisting the CAP for the Navy.

They are trained in the use of air to surface anti-ship attack, but that is way back in their list of priorities, as the Navy has pilots specially trained for that task. And you have entire chain of command issues then, as the Marines essentially command their own air assets, like the Marines themselves they are only secondary to Navy commands when on the ships. Once in the air, all commands come from the Marines. Turn those assets over to the Navy, and I see a huge fustercluck of conflicting orders.

And in the middle is the Osprey. Being a tilt-rotor, the Air Force might have something to say about the Army getting their hands on it, because of the Key West Agreement.

Plus, traditionally the Army and Navy have never really gotten along all that well. Throw in the Air Force as to control of land based aviation, and I see a nasty fight in which nobody wins and everybody loses.

 

That's essentially true. But the M110A2's I commanded could deliver any of four yields. The highest was 15kt... Hiroshima. So was Hiroshima strategic? Or tactical?