Seals are paid in a similar fashion to other elite units.
Some of these include: $375/month dive pay, $300/month SDV pay, $225/month jump pay, $110/month special duty assignment pay, various enlistment and reenlistment bonuses.
There are both Officers and Enlisted members of the SEALS. I disagree with others who say that SEALS don’t promote well. In my experience, they do quite well.
Thanks for the info - as for the highlighted, please note that all I’ve got comes directly from two overcompetitive uncles (three if you count my dad who only couldn’t join the SEALS due to his eyesight) B&Ming over their respective hardships and trials in the service over beers and football games before the adoring and awe-stuck eyes of their junior relatives. 
I would not be surprised at all if you were right, and they were dramatizing their ‘privations and sufferings’ for effect.
So basically you are incapable of providing a cite for your hype, and you are completely ignorant of the subject. Case in point, you mention Stryker Brigades. A Stryker Brigade is among the heaviest, least agile combat brigades in the Army. Why would you mention them as an example of “light”? The Army has entire “light” infantry divisions. Roughly in order of heaviest/least mobile to lightest/most agile, you have Armor, Mechanized Infantry, Stryker Infantry, Mountain Infantry, light infantry, Air Assault Infantry and Airborne Infantry.
Also can you provide a cite to your claim that DoD is resisting the Army’s efforts to become “lighter”? The recent restructuring into Brigade Combat Teams would show that you’re talking out of your ass.
I guess I just think that elite soldiers should not be among the enlisted.
I am not sure what the reqs are for officer status but somehow I think that elite soldiers (e.g. SEALS) would get the equivalent of honorary degrees sufficient to plop them in officer territory.
Yeah, I suspect that is silly. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians makes for a mess. Just a sense if you bust your ass to become the best of the best there should be some perks beyond pissing rights.
Lifelong civilian here. My understanding–and please correct me if I’m wrong–is that the Marines are the only branch of the military that the President can send anywhere he wants without gaining congressional approval. It would be a rare president who would be inclined to take that off the table.
I think that is wrong technically but correct practically.
The president has a window (I forget how long without looking it up) where he can deploy troops without Congressional approval.
When you want to toss in a rapid strike force to meet an immediate need the President will call in the Marines.
That said he can use any of the military he wants and will depending on what makes sense.
Eventually he will have to answer to Congress but that is an ongoing pissing match that I do not think has ever been definitively resolved (I don’t think either side wants to have it settled clearly to be honest).
God is on the side of the biggest battalions - Napoleon Bonaparte
One of the things that make the USMC an elite aggressive force is that every Marine is trained as a rifleman and every officer trained to lead an infantry platoon, regardless of their ultimate job in the Corps. From here:
And from here
This is another myth repeated often by Marines and lifelong civilians alike. There is nothing elite or unique about the Marines with respect to the President’s ability to deploy them. Your misunderstanding of the War Powers Act is not your fault. It is the fault of those who make statements like “The President can deploy the Marine Corps without Congress. They are his police force. etc…” The truth is that the President can order any military unit into “imminent involvement of hostilities”. Then Congress has a 62 day window to authorize it or they come back.
I believe the reason the Marines seem to always get credit for being the “only” force that can be deployed without Congress declaring war is because of them being sent into Lebanon in the early 80s stirring debate on the War Powers Act.
It isn’t a pissing contest to say that the Marines were not “designed” to be a more rapidly deployable force than the Army so they can get to the fight while the Army ramps up it’s huge war engine. This simply isn’t true.
It also isn’t a hijack. This is germane to the discussion. The topic at hand is the necessity to even have a Marine Corps. At issue is the very role of the Corps. Your incorrect statements that the purpose of the Marines is to be a rapidly deployable force that gets to the fight immediately and allows time for the heavier slower Army to get there is ridiculous. Your only evidence is your poor logic. You claim that the Marine Corps cannot self sustain for long operations. This is true. But then you claim that the Army–which can sustain itself indefinitely–cannot rapidly deploy to a combat theatre. Nothing could be further from the truth. How can you even make such a claim with any seriousness considering the evidence of the past 30 years. If the Marine Corps possess a unique rapid deployment capability, why were they not sent to Panama instead of the Army? Why were they not sent into Afghanistan before the Army? I mean, it’s just silly for you to say something like that and then call ME ignorant.
The Marine Corps is unique though. They provide landing troops for the Navy. They provide fleet protection at sea and at port. That is a unique enough mission to justify their existance as part of the US Navy–which they are. No need to make shit up to declare how special they are.
Fact is that the US Army has entire Airborne divisions that can deploy anywhere in the entire world within 24 hours. Anywhere. Not just where there is a shore or an airport. Not just to places within helicopter range of the ocean. Anywhere. Entire Divisions, not small elite units. What Marine division can do that?
Good luck doing that without the Air Force. Maybe you can hitch a ride on some Navy ships with the Marines.
And the conversation comes full circle on the strength of a interservice wisecrack. I couldn’t resist.
The respective services all compliment each other. Sure, the Army can do what the Marines do. And with regards to aircraft the Air Force can do what the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines do. But with the specialization of duties, not one of the services is efficiently replaceable. There’s no reason to make a war out of this, so to speak.
As for the elimination of the Marine Corps, let’s say we do that. does anybody think that those people won’t be replaced man for man in the Army? They cut a half million Marines and we’ll have a half million more grunts. And what’s more, they’ll probably be trained to do the same thing the Marines do so that the quick-reaction capability (apparently not so) unique to the Marines remains.
It would do little to no good to cut the Marines out. In my opinion, that is.
What does that have to do with anything? Nobody in this thread is making the claim that any one branch of the US Military can act completely independant of all the others.
The Army cannot make amphibious, beach-head assaults from Navy vessels. Our infantry carrying vehicles are not amphibious like the Marine Corps.
The Navy can’t launch huge bombers from it’s carriers. The Air Force can’t conduct population centric patrols in a village. Not every branch can do what the others can.
There are specific needs for each service. Each has a specific abilities and inabilities. But the “ability” of the Marine Corps is not it’s unique rapid global deployment abilities. And the “inability” of the Army is not it’s lack of light, mobile, rapidly deployable units.
Did you not read what came immediately afterward? I’d say you’re a bit wrapped around the axle about this whole thing if you went that way over an admitted swipe. Settle down.
Yes, I did. But clouding up an issue with nonsense isn’t okay simply because it’s an irresistable interservice wisecrack. Here I am trying to stay clear of biased “interservice rivalry” and am trying to explain to spifflog that he has some misconceptions and misunderstandings all the while ensuring that this isn’t a pissing contest. I am trying to keep the conversation factual and not simply “our team is better than your team”. And then you just jump right in to push the conversation in a direction I’d like to keep it from going.
Then you followed it up by saying that all the Services can do what the others can. That the Air Force can do what the Navy can do with respect to aircraft? Does the Air Force really deploy fighters from air craft carriers?
Each service has some unique capability, or at least something they’re better at than the others. Large scale rapid deployment isn’t the Marines’. One can’t claim that the Marines are the go-to quick reaction force when the Army can deploy entire divisions by parachute. Nor can a person claim the Marines are sent in first to secure the area for the Army when such a thing has probably NEVER happened, let alone in the last few decades. It isn’t factual to say that the Marine Corps was “designed” to be a faster, lighter force than the Army when it was designed to be the Navy’s ground landing / amphibious troops.
If I’m a bit wrapped around the axle–which I’m not–it is because I am sick of hearing people talk about how the Marine Corps is this amazing, do everything, and do it first, Presidential gestapo, ultra hard core fighting force. When the evidence all points to the contrary. As I said in my first post, It’s all hype! It’s like someone who is famous simply for being famous.
The Marines have a perpetual reputation that seems to be instilled in every Marine at boot camp where they are told over and over again how amazing the Marines are. Well don’t tell me. Show me. Don’t stand there in line talking about how much discipline the Corps has when your uniform looks like shit and your pants are unbloused. Don’t tell me how battle hardened the Corps is when they have fewer and shorter combat deployments. Don’t tell everyone at the bar you’re a “rifelman first” when you did one (6 month) tour in Afghanistan as a network technician.
Actually he is, but he’s a reservist. I can’t find the cite that I’ve read before, but this is another picture of the same dude:
http://www.frigginrandom.com/wp-content/gallery/4-6-10-weekly-random-pics/fat-army.jpg
Why not leave the Marine Corps as it is, but attach it to the Army? That way, in addition to Armored Divisions and Airborne Divisions, the Army will also have Marine Divisions. You can keep the old command structure, the old training methods, even the old dress uniforms.
I can think of several distinct advantages merging with the Army:
Better coordination - any problems involving chains of command and communications between Marines and other ground forces fighting in the same arena will be much less prominent. This also means commonality of weapons and equipment, which makes logistics much more efficient, and leads to the following point…
Better budget - the Marines always seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to purchases. As part of the Army, they’ll get the same consideration as everyone else.
Cross-pollination - this, to me, is the biggest advantage. Marines and Army will now work together, train together, and go to courses together, which means they’ll also share doctrine and ideas. Walling off the two parts of the military from each other has been counter-productive - if the Marines have developed better solutions to certain problems, or vice versa, shouldn’t they be allowed to disseminate throughout all of the ground forces? Besides, if Marine officers really are better than Army officers, then won’t that mean that they’ll eventually become more prominent throughout the Army, essentially remaking it in their image?
That man is far over the weight limit for retention or enlistment. There is more to this story.
As I noted upthread, one of the things the USMC does well is publicity.
Because the Army and the Marine Corps have two different missions. That’s as clear as it can be. And by combining the two, we’d lose the effectiveness of both parts. And what would be gain? Some small staff savings.
Why not combine all air power into one service? Because the Air Force and Navy (and the Marine Corps and Army) have different, unique air missions.
Can you make a case that the current construct is broken?
Is the Marine Corps’ mission more different that an armored division’s mission than an airborne division is? In terms of mission, I’d say that airborne are closer to marine than they are to armored.
Everyone in the military has their own missions - do tanks and artillery have the same mission? If not, should they both be part of the same organization?
The army’s rapid deployment has been eased by the fact that the US hasn’t fought an opponent with a worthy armed force in conventional war in quite some time. You say if the Marines weren’t the first into Iraq/Afghanistan/etc, then obviously the idea that they’re the expeditionary unit is useless.
But the reality is that the army didn’t fight those wars by parachuting in a bunch of guys using their rapid reaction light forces either. In all wars the US has fought recently, they’ve had ample time to ramp up, establish a supply chain, and get sorted out before attacking. This suits the army’s style.
If something oh-shit-for-real-scary happens, something that actually challenges the US military, the marines as a rapid reaction force would be more useful. Their logistical chain is smaller, leaner, and requires less in the way of support like functional, safe, long runways for the airforce to deliver assloads of supply. They integrate their own light armor and heavy weapons much better than the army light and airborne divisions, while being much faster to deploy and with a smaller supply train than the medium or heavy divisions.
When you have the luxury of using your giant military, network of allies, safe build up zones, and plenty of time against half-ass third world militaries, it doesn’t really matter who you send in.
If you want a sustainable quick response, you send the marines. People talk about how the marines can’t sustain the fight as long as the army - but if we’re talking about comparing parachuting in airborne divisions across the world, their staying power is at least an order of magnitude less. I don’t seriously think we’ll see a major actual parachute operation ever again. Air-mobile, yes, but helicopters have a limited range and the army can’t land anywhere in the world with them - they rely on safe areas for the air force to transport them to, which might not always be available. The marines are capable of bringing their own integral supply train into hostile territory quite a bit more aggressively, as well as having mobile bases all of the world.
TLDR version: In a world where the US has lots of time and bases everywhere to build up to beat up half-ass militaries, it doesn’t matter who you send in. If challenging shit actually went down, and you needed to send in a rapid reaction force halfway across the world, you go Marines.
Cites for all this?