I doubt that the current understaffing of the U.S. armed forces is due to budget cuts. More likely, it’s because a term of military service is no longer as attractive to young people when compared to their other options. We’re in a booming economy right now, so 18-year-olds are more likely to have parents that can afford to send them to college without the help of any “join the army and get up to $30,000 for college!” kinds of deals, and even if they can’t, the economy has created a labor market so hot that anyone can get a half-decent paying job (either to pay their own way through college or as a full-time career).
And furthermore, there just doesn’t seem to be much public desire to serve in the military. Heck, even the modern U.S. Army recruitment commercials are geared toward the notion that you’ll learn valuable skills that’ll land you a high-paying civilian job when you get out.
The NOAA Commissioned Corps (former CAGSC) is a tiny “naval” service that provides the officers for NOAA Maritime Research vessels and aircraft (the bulk of the science crew being rounded up by civilians who embark on that particular research mission); it’s in the Dept. of Commerce. Has no Academy, only an OCS. Their uniforms tend towards a combination of USN with USCG. Their highest rank is a Rear Admiral.
Cecil has already addressed what is the deal with the USPHS. The Surgeon General of the US wears a Viceadmiral’s insignia.
An interesting development is Army Chief of Staff GEN Shinseki’s newfound focus on medium forces to complement the Army’s current heavy (Abrams/Bradley) and light (Humvees and LPCs - leather personnel carriers) forces. Apparently, recent missions have shown a weakness in this area. Light forces like the 82nd Airborne and 10th Mountain lack sufficient firepower. Heavy forces lack the mobility and rapidity of deployment (they need good ports, airfields, roads, and bridges).
What GEN Shinseki appears not to have noticed (I wonder why) is that the US already has medium forces - the Marine Corps. There are some shortcomings, but many Marine units are organized similar to what the Army is proposing (wheeled APCs, etc.). Better Army/Marine cooperation would moot the need for a new force.
Also, such a medium capability is considered necessary for peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention operations like Somalia and Kosovo. Although the Marines have a vision of themselves molded by Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Inchon, large-scale amphibious operations really aren’t the Corps only thing. Throughout its history, the Corps has been America’s intervention force - in Haiti, Nicaragua, DomRep, etc. - with and without the Army.
The Army and the Marines should work together (perish the thought). Instead, the Army will probably go out on its own, revive the AGS, and design a series of wheeled vehicles at great expense.
Well, DaveDanner, I think you’re right to place a premium on interservice cooperation. The Marines can perform most or all of the missions medium forces are intended to.
I do feel, though, that the Armored Gun System is a useful piece of equipment. Do the Marines have something that would make it redundant? Did they ever put the LAV Assault Guns into production? I never heard the whole story on that one.
Here’s a question for everybody: how do you get the services (say, Army light forces, Marine medium forces, and Naval gunfire support) to cooperate? You can order them to, sure, but how do you get them to digest interservice cooperation as a basic part of their mission?
How would you evaluate current U.S. interservice cooperation? Frankly, I’ve only heard about the failures (e.g. Navy and Army radios not being compatible in Grenada); I’m ignorant of the successes.
That does this mean: “but I usually think of the Marines as “land branch” of the Navy” doesn’t seem to parse.
Our current set up offers a competitive attitude between the services that many think is needed to keep everybody sharp - an elderly example is “The right stuff” as applied to the original prospective astronauts.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
I don’t know if I understand what you wrote, Jois. By the “land branch of the Navy” I just meant that the Marines do most of the land warfare for the Navy Department. The major exception is the SEALs, which is why that organization seems to fit logically in the Marines. I just figured Sea, Air, Land … Marines … good match.
Hopefully, I can convince you to accept “hopefully” as a disjunct adverb.
Frankly, I would be lying if I said I were confident.
Perhaps this subject is simply too complex for me to explain.
Unfortunately, I would be lucky to explain my way out of a paper bag.
Canada made a huge mistake when it unified the armed forces, and has been trying to un-unify them ever since. After unification, morale hit an all-time low. The soldiers HATED it.
A big part of a soldier’s esprit de corps derives specifically from competition with other services and pride in the particular service he or she is in. You can get soldiers to do the real ucky stuff like lie in a swamp for hours on end because that’s what Marines (or Rangers or whatever) DO. But put them in the same uniform as the guy making twice as much sitting in the Radar hut drinking coffee, disconnect them from their unit history and sense of family, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Canada finally admitted its errors with unification and has been correcting the damage for some time (like re-issuing separate uniforms to each service). I was sitting in the Warrant Officer’s lounge here at CFB Edmonton when a pilot walked in in his new Air Force Blues, and you should have heard the cheers.
A lot of you have the wrong view of each respective service. Here’s what I know about them (I’m not Cecil, I don’t know everything)
The Marine Corps is the primary US assault force. They are the ones primarily responsible for initial assault, but are not self-supportive. They can hold their own for maybe 2 weeks. For some reason people have this notion that the marines are all-powerful.
The Army is the primary ground attack force overall. This is where the strength of our military should be. They are the heavy hitters, since they have the tanks, artillery (and they have helicopters for evac, medical, and anti-tank purposes). The Army’s role comes into play after the Marines secure a landing spot.
The Navy is our army at sea, so to speak. They have an “air force” of their own for defense and to project force. It would get very complicated if the Air Force owned and operated all the fighter jets in the Navy. The Navy is supposed to have jurisdiction of it’s own units so it can order them around whenever it wants or needs to, without the Air Force command interfering.
The Air Force plays a defensive/support role to the rest of the armed forces. They control our bombers and most of out long-range fighters.
Now, those of you who support downsizing the military…that’s the biggest mistake the US could do right now. US policy is to have a military that can fight in TWO major conflicts as well as a peacekeeping mission somewhere else…as it is right now, we can barely support a peacekeeping mission, let alone fight ONE major conflict. Just because there hasn’t been a major conflict in a while doesn’t mean there can’t be one. Look at WWI and WWII (moreso WWI though). European nations were not prepared for war because they assumed there wouldn’t be any major war because there hasn;t been one for a long time. In WWII England trusted the Nazis to uphold their treaties they signed (BIG mistake). What do you think is going on right now? Open your eyes and look around will you? There are dozens of possible wars around the world just waiting to be ignited. I hope our government can come to it’s senses.
Which has never successfully been done in the histroy of warfare (without massive allies, at least), which cost Germany WWII, and for which there is no conclusive proof that it will ever be needed.
The policy is wrong, the vaunted competition is why we have mucho extra equipment without enough personnel (and way too many middle managers, as well), and we fought the “let’s try to get re-elected” Gulf War with units that had pluralities and even majorities of reservists.
BUt you need to have at least the appearance of being able to fight on two fronts. Otherwise, opportunist governments will take advantage of any opportunity that arises when your military is engaged elsewhere.
Oh, and I forgot to add that even when you aren’t engaged in a shooting war, you often have to commit troops or ships to an area to project power and stabilize a region. If India and Pakistan start agitating, having a U.S. fleet steam into the area can calm things down. But if that fleet were the whole of U.S. naval power, suddenly you might have some tinpot dictator in South America seize the opportunity to overthrow a neighbor, etc.
