They always seemed to pull the worst details that needed to be done. That always frustrated me. They are part of the forces and deserve much more than the guff they are given most of the time. They have a pride that seems to have vanished among the other forces. It goes beyond gung-ho, there is a comraderie that shows through and through. I also noticed that if dorms were upgraded theirs was always the last to be done. The last to released for chow. But, they always shrugged it off. To me it is sad, the first ones in, seem to draw the short stick on treatment when we were in peacetime. I have four of the five forces in my family. The one thing I’ve noticed that the Marines have something more than pride that extends after their time in. The others have pride and boast also, but the marines seem to still have the gleam in the eye so to speak about their service. For the AF everything is treated as a business and ran as such. Tons of backstabbing, even from the highest enlisted ranks. It seems to be taught through and through, its always self before service. Or the service goes out of its way to screw someone. The only Navy I have really worked with were pilots and I do not judge the Navy by their actions, because I do not have a full picture. The Army seems always to be happy go lucky.
These are my personnal opinions I am NOT out to insult anyone or hurt their feelings or pride in their service. These are only my observations after a lot of years in the service. I have notice descrepancies throughout all of the services and their treatment of each other and their own.
The biggest thing though is that majority of the people are here to do the job and want to do just that and not play politics or hob knob. Those are the ones who seems to always get the short end of the stick and leave. We either loose the good ones or ship them somewhere else.
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps this could explain the cohesiveness. No entitlement or special favors and the thinking that “if we don’t stick together and look out for one another…” could create this mission oriented and loyalty above all approach to everything. Not good for comfort but maybe good for the organization. After all, comfort and entitlement makes you soft. Marines ain’t soft.
Since a lot of the Marine Corps remains at any given time deployed with the fleet, a lot of it actually fights specifically from fleet units (e.g. carrierborne Marine F-18s) and the Navy and Marines remain integrated in many operational functions (e.g. Navy medical corpsmen as the medics in Marine units), it makes sense that even though they are separate services (the Commandant has his own seat in the JCS), for the bureaucratic-administrative managerial part of the equation they continue to share the same civilian office back in Arlington, whatever it is called. It’s not a position of subordination to the other service, but to a common civilian authority, and it might as well happen at that level.
“Have their own department” is not a question of deserving, but of whether it’s organizationally useful – we may as well wonder conversely why keep the “service departments” at all, and not switch the titles of the “Secretary of the (Army/Navy-Marines/AirForce)” to “Vice-Secretary of Defense for (Land/Maritime-littoral/Aerospace) Forces”, and make the head of DoD the ex-officio nominal “Secretary-of” for all the services.
Thanks that explains somethings I did not get to well. That does sound like a good idea of vice secretarys’. It could be a move to the purple force they always seem to refer to for the future.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Moeman *
**But even under that bill the Marines are part of the Department of the Navy. Why can’t they have their own Departent of the Marine Corps?
It goes back to when the Marines were first created. Their origional duty was, basically, security for the naval ships. They were sharpshooters who would post up in the masts of the ship, firing down onto the enemy. Which also bought about the “decerations” that you see on the top of the hats/covers in the military uniforms. It was to help the Marine sharpshooters identify who the enemy was.
I agree with jacksen, I’ve always been treated very well by members of other branches. Sure there are always the friendly jokes, but that’s all it is, jokes.
About a year ago I was the best man at my cousin’s wedding. One of the bridesmaids was in the Air Force. During the rehearsals she made her mandatory dumb Marines jokes. No big deal. The day of the wedding I showed up in my dress blues, she walked up to me and said something to the effect of “I know I’ve been telling some bad jokes at your expense, but I want you to know that I have the utmost respect for the Marine Corps.” Then I had her fetch me a beer.
Who were sometimes the revolting sailors, pressed into service while drunk in bars, only to wake up on a ship, having signed up for a hitch the night before. According to stories.
This information is contrary to what Marines are told. gruntz#1 had his basic facts right but there are a few corrections that need to be made. Marines were in charge of the ships security and therefore they not only were up in the masts, but also on deck fighting to expel the enemy or hopefully going on board an enemy ship. The decorations that gruntz#1 mentioned are only on officers covers (hats to non-Marine/Navy types). The decorations were so the marksmen up in the masts could distinguish the officers from the enlisted men. An inside joke of the Marines might question what these sharpshooters did with this information.
The Marine Corps is a part of the Department of Navy. The Continental Congress established the Navy on October 13, 1775 and the Marine Corps on November 10, 1775. After the Revolutionary War, the ships were sold and seamen were sent home.
Evidently the Marines weren’t disbanded and so any Marine worth his “salt” will tell you that the Marine Corps is older than the Navy.
toadspittle - check out this site for information on any and all USMC equipment including ground and air assets.
One point on the whole USMC-as-part-of-the-Navy discussion: since the USMC is perhaps the smallest of the armed forces, they benefit in a number of areas by working with the Navy. I haven’t read everything written thus far, so I’m not sure of all the points covered. Rather than trying to fund all of their efforts on their own, the USMC has their aircraft acquisition and management programs under the control of, and in the budget of, the Navy. Meaning that the Navy foots the bill for acquisition, testing and support of Marine Corps air assets including branch unique units like the Harrier. Not sure quite how that fits in to the discussion, especially since this thing started out as a question of which branch lets you fly the easiest, but hey, I’m just tryin’ to go with the flow here.
The information you are arguing with is from an offical Marine Corps site. Write them if you want to straighten things out. My point was, is and will be that of pay. I signed up in late '58 or early '59. I was commissioned in May 1961. For pay purposes my date of entry was the earlier date, while every other means of becoming an officer will be based on a date after graduation. This makes a big difference in pay, for a 2nd Lt. with 2 years longevity and one with a couple of months or less. Time served as an enlisted man will also count the same way, but this method of obtaining a commission is not usually done by design, but instead decided on after enlistment and some service. If this is what you are doing Stinkpalm I wish you well in your endeavor, as it is probably the best way (but only recognized usually through hind-sight). [sup]THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED[/sup]
[sup]THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED[/sup]