DOD budget: Save $29 billion. Eliminate Marine Corps

[Oldguy]

We had a far greater existential threat during the Cold War, and yet we are spending twice as much now as we did then.

You have to remember that war isn't as simple as it used to be. If you aint keeping ahead of the Joneses you're dying.

Yup. Years ago I had a conversation with a guy who explained the rational behind the Government continuing Submarine construction at General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, and he made some great points. Lets talk about the Seawolf Class, as that was the topic of the conversation. As it happens, the Seawolf (SSN-21 Class) was nearing completion yet (at the time) America was witnessing a severely diminished threat from the usual suspects, the Soviet Union. Now the point he made was that America was in sort of a bind as there were many people who wanted to eliminate the program altogether. He pointed out that it raised a very serious problem within the Defense community, and the defense of America as well. Suppose you arbitrarily axe a program such as a high Generation Nuclear Submarine like the SSN-21? Well, when the plug gets pulled -jobs are lost. We are not talking about people who flip burgers here, we are talking about highly trained people in very select fields. If America were to lose those people to cutbacks, we lose them to the private sector. Now suppose nobody builds a Nuclear Submarine for five years, then all of the sudden a nation like China goes on a Sub building rampage and creates a threat which requires a specific Sub to challenge it. Guess what, the people aren't in place to build it, and you're not going to find them at any temp agency. As much as people want to eliminate defense spending because maybe it doesn't jive with their ideologies, or whatever -people still have to use common sense when cutting high tech defense programs because although we might not need them today, there's a good chance we'll need them tomorrow. And it makes sense to have the people capable of getting the job done -already in place. Eliminating the Marine Corps is an idea based solely upon irrational and ideologically driven thinking. They are part of the Navy, and have skills no other branch of service is capable of. The Army is not designed to counter a threat in such a timely fashion as a MEU is capable of. The Marines are designed to place a substantial force where it's needed until the Army can get their greater forces into play. We saw this in Saudi Arabia when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The job of our Government first and foremost is to provide for the defense for America, it isn't to leave Americans vulnerable to attack simply to prop up some obscure entitlement programs. Use your heads.

I fully agree on the necessity of keeping the military equipment assembly lines working. Once you close and dismantle a shipyard or an aircraft factory, they can't be rebuilt and restaffed overnight. We learned that lesson in WWII and shouldn't have to relearn it again.

As for the Marines having skills no other branch has? What skills? And, I would remind you that the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne can be on-scene at a crisis quicker than the Marines can unless they just happen to have an MEU in the area.

 

[Oldguy]

As far as the Marine Corps is concerned, they have a very different mission from the Army, and couldn't just be dumped. There could be considerable savings in combining training for all the armed services though, such as one boot camp for all services. Advanced training could be combined where possible - no need for separate electronics schools for the different services for instance. Also, in geographic regions where there may be multiple bases for the various services, why not consolidate where possible? There is so much duplication and waste in the armed services.

Right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate R&D and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the Marines and, arguably, the Coast Guard too.

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

I think that would be a grand idea. The different services we have now are like little independent fiefdoms which are jealously guarded and it adversely affects our readiness, defense posture and expense.

Of course, just like zeroing out the Marines, getting it through Congress would be a miracle.

 

[Oldguy]

The Marines are an amphibious fighting force. If you eliminate the Marines and replace them with Army forces, how are you saving money? You still need the same number of MEUs, or whatever the Army equivalent would be.

When's the last time we HAD to make an amphibious landing somewhere? How much are you willing to spend to maintain a force for a mission which isn't called for anymore?

And, by the way, the Army is perfectly capable of conducting amphibious operations. In fact, they've done it more than the Marines anyhow, including the largest and arguably the most successful in history at Normandy.

Quite a bit could be saved by closing down Marine bases here at home and abroad. Without a Marine Corps, we wouldn't need Pendleton or Twenty-Nine Palms or Barstow or PI.

That all sounds so easy and pat.

Not so-I am afraid you require massive injections of history and massive doses of subject matter as to the operational art(s) of warfare.


Building, supplying and sending off an invasion force from 30-40 miles away (Portsmouth, Southampton, Chichester) where in you have a solid, fully protected logistical post, unsinkable airfields ( that don't need fuel and don't move) providing virtually instantaneous, deadly and un- interfered tactical air support ( plus massive strategic sppt. as in bombing enemy rail-heads, supply dumps etc.) is very much different than say Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima etc.

You'll notice I didn't include Okinawa, if you understand the reason why I didn't then you might now understand why Marines and soldiers are different and why the distinction is wise. ( in addition if you knew some history of the US Armys 7th & 25th or 81st divisions that would help too).

Ok, so when was the last time they made a NECESSARY amphibious landing? I'm not talking about landings like in Danang or Somalia which were for show, but actually forced entry into a hostile environment.

 

[Antares]

LOL, the army is not near the fighting force the Marines are.

With all the talk about sequester and spending cuts, here's a sure fire way to save $29 billion right now: Eliminate the Marine Corps.

There's nothing they do which can't be done by the Army. It's a superfluous and redundant ground force which we really can't afford anymore.

Actually, this does make some sense. The U.S. Army is second to none, and the marines could easily be replaced by armored cavalry units and/or naval attachments.

Of course, I don't think history has ever recorded any successful attempt at reducing the size and belly of the U.S. military corporation.

 

[Oldguy]

Let's see what some of the finest US Army Generals, US Presidents and most importantly some of our enemies had to say about my beloved Corps.

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a MARINE and his rifle!"
GEN. PERSHING, US.ARMY

"I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world." (General Douglas MacArthur, USA, outskirts of Seoul, 21 September 1950.)

"I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like brilliant, it would really be an under-description of the absolutely superb job they did in breaching the so-called impenetrable barrier. . .Absolutely superb operation, a textbook, and I think it'll be studied for many, many years to come as the way to do it." (General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, USA, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 27 February 1991.)

"The more MARINES I have around the better I like it!"
GEN. MARK CLARK, U.S. ARMY

"I can never again see a UNITED STATES MARINE without experiencing a feeling of reverence."
GEN. JOHNSON, U.S. ARMY

"Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the AMERICAN MARINES."
CAPTURED NORTH KOREAN MAJOR

“If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.”
General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea,

“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.

"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

"We have two companies of MARINES running all over this island and thousands of ARMY troops doing nothing!"
GEN JOHN VESSEY, CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS

"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of MARINES. LORD, how they could fight!"
MAJGEN FRANK LOWE, US.ARMY

Roger that George, and even an Army guy like me has to admit that it is always best to have a Devil Dog unit on your flank in combat because that's one flank you don't have to worry about. Here's a true story: In 2003 when the Marines and the Army 3d Infantry Division had taken down Baghdad and had truck convoys scattered all the way into Kuwait, I was a plans officer at USCENTCOM when our intelligence intercepted an order from the Iraqi insurgency commander. It was a field order to all the insurgent unit commanders and it went something like this:

"Resistance Commanders, When attacking supply and truck units you must be aware that there are two different American "armies":

1. The US Army which wears tan desert uniforms like this (photo of a
Soldier wearing the old desert uniform); and.

2. The US Marine Corps which wears a different uniform like this (photo of a Marine wearing the newly issued USMC digital uniform).

When planning your attacks on supply lines and truck convoys ensure that you do NOT attack a US Marine unit. If you do, these supply-unit Marines will immediately act like Army infantry and they will attack you and hunt every one of your men down and kill them. The US Army truck and supply units will not pursue you. Attack them instead."

As deeply embarrassing as that was to the entire US Army, it was a long time coming. As an Infantryman, I know that in the past 25 years we trained the hell out of our active duty combat units but we let the rest
of the force waste away. The Army has a long ways to go, but we have rectified some of these problems in the past four years. It's just sad that we had to let the enemy tell us how screwed up we were.

VR,

Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918

Interesting quotes, but entirely meaningless to this discussion.

 

[Antares]

LOL, Nutter I was in the Army...we don't/didn't get near the training they do/did.

Weren't you a rear echelon guy, supply?

There is a reason they get sent in first depsite you wanting prove your dick is bigger than a Marines.

They are two distinct types of forces, trained for different tasks....my contention stands, unless they begin to train the army the way they train Marines it would be an unneccessary weaking of our military.

Now why don't you prove that the Army is a better fighting force than the Marines...I mean THAT is your contention is it not?

The Marines are an elite trained fighting force, now if you want train the Army the same way the Marines are trined then we might discuss it.

The Marines are far superior to the Army.

Have you got any evidence to support that notion? We hear it a lot. But, is it really true?

 

[Oldguy]

LOL, Nutter I was in the Army...we don't/didn't get near the training they do/did.

Weren't you a rear echelon guy, supply?

There is a reason they get sent in first depsite you wanting prove your dick is bigger than a Marines.

They are two distinct types of forces, trained for different tasks....my contention stands, unless they begin to train the army the way they train Marines it would be an unneccessary weaking of our military.

Now why don't you prove that the Army is a better fighting force than the Marines...I mean THAT is your contention is it not?

The Marines are an elite trained fighting force, now if you want train the Army the same way the Marines are trined then we might discuss it.

The Marines are far superior to the Army.

Have you got any evidence to support that notion? We hear it a lot. But, is it really true?

No, I was Infantry for nearly 15 years.

If the only reason to keep the Marines is the training they get, that's easily solvable by simply training the Army troops to do the things Marines do. In most cases, that won't even be necessary because the skill sets are nearly all the same.

And, no, my contention isn't that the Army is better, but that it's just as good.

 

[Antares]

Well you just agreed with I have stated in both of my posts, I'm glad you agree.

LOL, Nutter I was in the Army...we don't/didn't get near the training they do/did.

Weren't you a rear echelon guy, supply?

There is a reason they get sent in first depsite you wanting prove your dick is bigger than a Marines.

They are two distinct types of forces, trained for different tasks....my contention stands, unless they begin to train the army the way they train Marines it would be an unneccessary weaking of our military.

Now why don't you prove that the Army is a better fighting force than the Marines...I mean THAT is your contention is it not?

Have you got any evidence to support that notion? We hear it a lot. But, is it really true?

No, I was Infantry for nearly 15 years.

If the only reason to keep the Marines is the training they get, that's easily solvable by simply training the Army troops to do the things Marines do. In most cases, that won't even be necessary because the skill sets are nearly all the same.

And, no, my contention isn't that the Army is better, but that it's just as good.

 

[Trajan]

When's the last time we HAD to make an amphibious landing somewhere? How much are you willing to spend to maintain a force for a mission which isn't called for anymore?

And, by the way, the Army is perfectly capable of conducting amphibious operations. In fact, they've done it more than the Marines anyhow, including the largest and arguably the most successful in history at Normandy.

Quite a bit could be saved by closing down Marine bases here at home and abroad. Without a Marine Corps, we wouldn't need Pendleton or Twenty-Nine Palms or Barstow or PI.

That all sounds so easy and pat.

Not so-I am afraid you require massive injections of history and massive doses of subject matter as to the operational art(s) of warfare.


Building, supplying and sending off an invasion force from 30-40 miles away (Portsmouth, Southampton, Chichester) where in you have a solid, fully protected logistical post, unsinkable airfields ( that don't need fuel and don't move) providing virtually instantaneous, deadly and un- interfered tactical air support ( plus massive strategic sppt. as in bombing enemy rail-heads, supply dumps etc.) is very much different than say Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima etc.

You'll notice I didn't include Okinawa, if you understand the reason why I didn't then you might now understand why Marines and soldiers are different and why the distinction is wise. ( in addition if you knew some history of the US Armys 7th & 25th or 81st divisions that would help too).

Ok, so when was the last time they made a NECESSARY amphibious landing? I'm not talking about landings like in Danang or Somalia which were for show, but actually forced entry into a hostile environment.

Inchon, Grenada.....

and if you're only argument is 'when was the last time', well good luck with that. You do realize as well that the Marines, their MEUs etc. do a great deal of relief work?


Army units have a specific mission, Marines have one, I have long thought that lowering the number of vanilla mech. army and Armour units, is probably the way to go and at their expense we increase or fully fund of air superiority ( F-22), Carrier air grp s and MEU's.

 

[Borillar]

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

^ Whaaat ???? They are combined into one command structure, we do have combined bases, we already have ,and have had one procurement system, Naval aircraft are different than Air Force aircraft because one lands on ships, and the other one doesn't, and they have entirely different missions. The Navy and the Coast Guard serve two entirely different roles. This is why people who don't understand the Military need to have an understanding of what they're talking about, rather than just stupid ideological rants. but the same uniforms? Please... This isn't exactly Star Trek. Now beam yourself up Scotty, because you are one serious space cadet.

The dolt is a major troll.. nothing more nothing less

Well, I don't see you bringing anything to the conversation either besides insults, putdowns, and name calling.

Note that I am not advocating that any of these things actually be done. The discussion is regarding saving money by lopping off branches of the service. I only advocate consolidation where possible and eliminating duplication. Perhaps some of that is already being done. My service was over 30 years ago, so I'm sure many things have changed.

 

[Trajan]

LOL, Nutter I was in the Army...we don't/didn't get near the training they do/did.

Weren't you a rear echelon guy, supply?

There is a reason they get sent in first depsite you wanting prove your dick is bigger than a Marines.

They are two distinct types of forces, trained for different tasks....my contention stands, unless they begin to train the army the way they train Marines it would be an unneccessary weaking of our military.

Now why don't you prove that the Army is a better fighting force than the Marines...I mean THAT is your contention is it not?

Have you got any evidence to support that notion? We hear it a lot. But, is it really true?

No, I was Infantry for nearly 15 years.

If the only reason to keep the Marines is the training they get, that's easily solvable by simply training the Army troops to do the things Marines do. In most cases, that won't even be necessary because the skill sets are nearly all the same.

And, no, my contention isn't that the Army is better, but that it's just as good.

so were would these newly trained army units stage? where and how would they be carried/transported?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I believe there there is a lot of truth in the Marine tradition of being the most aggressive and deadly fighting force in the world. However, everyone knows that the military is always formulating plans to fight the next war with the last war's tactics. In today's high tech military, aggressive advancing lightly equiped attack forces are being replaced by inantry who fight entirely differently than they ever did before. When I think about the next war, I don't see marines running out of Higgins boats. I see cruise missiles and drones, followed by infantry with electrically guided weapons and armored personnel carriers with soilders carrying grenade launchers, equiped with laser sightings and night vision. I think that the marine with his hand greandes and m-16 pretty much had it's last day in Vietnam, without any particular glorious victories. Today, we overcome our enemy, not with charging Marines, but with overwhelming technolgy and firepower. I am afraid that the Marine is as obsolete as his dress uniform sword. I don't take pleasure in saying that. Marines have an awful lot of history in which to be proud.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I believe there there is a lot of truth in the Marine tradition of being the most aggressive and deadly fighting force in the world. However, everyone knows that the military is always formulating plans to fight the next war with the last war's tactics. In today's high tech military, aggressive advancing lightly equiped attack forces are being replaced by inantry who fight entirely differently than they ever did before. When I think about the next war, I don't see marines running out of Higgins boats. I see cruise missiles and drones, followed by infantry with electrically guided weapons and armored personnel carriers with soilders carrying grenade launchers, equiped with laser sightings and night vision. I think that the marine with his hand greandes and m-16 pretty much had it's last day in Vietnam, without any particular glorious victories. Today, we overcome our enemy, not with charging Marines, but with overwhelming technolgy and firepower. I am afraid that the Marine is as obsolete as his dress uniform sword. I don't take pleasure in saying that. Marines have an awful lot of history in which to be proud.

Eliminating the Marine Corps so we can keep trying, and failing, at being the world's police is not a policy I will ever support.

Eliminating a branch of service should be a last ditch effort.

 

[California Girl]

I believe there there is a lot of truth in the Marine tradition of being the most aggressive and deadly fighting force in the world. However, everyone knows that the military is always formulating plans to fight the next war with the last war's tactics. In today's high tech military, aggressive advancing lightly equiped attack forces are being replaced by inantry who fight entirely differently than they ever did before. When I think about the next war, I don't see marines running out of Higgins boats. I see cruise missiles and drones, followed by infantry with electrically guided weapons and armored personnel carriers with soilders carrying grenade launchers, equiped with laser sightings and night vision. I think that the marine with his hand greandes and m-16 pretty much had it's last day in Vietnam, without any particular glorious victories. Today, we overcome our enemy, not with charging Marines, but with overwhelming technolgy and firepower. I am afraid that the Marine is as obsolete as his dress uniform sword. I don't take pleasure in saying that. Marines have an awful lot of history in which to be proud.

Everyone knows?

Wave bye bye to your last shred of credibility.

Moron.

Oh, and - on topic - you could not be more wrong about tactics. So if this 'everyone' know it - 'everyone' is as dumb as you are. Not good.

 

[jtpr312]

I believe there there is a lot of truth in the Marine tradition of being the most aggressive and deadly fighting force in the world. However, everyone knows that the military is always formulating plans to fight the next war with the last war's tactics. In today's high tech military, aggressive advancing lightly equiped attack forces are being replaced by inantry who fight entirely differently than they ever did before. When I think about the next war, I don't see marines running out of Higgins boats. I see cruise missiles and drones, followed by infantry with electrically guided weapons and armored personnel carriers with soilders carrying grenade launchers, equiped with laser sightings and night vision. I think that the marine with his hand greandes and m-16 pretty much had it's last day in Vietnam, without any particular glorious victories. Today, we overcome our enemy, not with charging Marines, but with overwhelming technolgy and firepower. I am afraid that the Marine is as obsolete as his dress uniform sword. I don't take pleasure in saying that. Marines have an awful lot of history in which to be proud.

Spoken like a fool who obviously doesn't know jack about the Marine Corps history in Veitnam or up till today. Stick to subjects you're familiar with and USMC achievements in battle circa Vitenam-Afghanistan/Iraq is certainly not one of them.