I saw the obituaries today and noticed that Medal of Honor winner William Barber had died. Barber was a Marine Captain who won the medal during Korea. I looked him up in “The Marine Corps Story” by J. Robert Moskin.
While perusing the book, I came across a quote by the Commandant of the USMC given at a speech commemorating the 200th aniversary of the Corps back in 1975.
The speech goes: “Everybody knows we need an Army, we need a Navy and we need an Air Force. It is very difficult to explain why we need a Marine Corps…”
The Commandant goes on to give his reasons for the USMC, but that was twenty-some years ago.
With the Army figuring out that the Marine model of “get there fast with firepower” suits the 21st century requirements of U.S. military’s needs more than any European battlefield scenario with the Soviet Union that seemed to be their focus for years, can the Army come up with a replacement for the USMC?
Even in Afghanistan, Tommy Franks, an Army General who was in charge in situ, called for the Marines to take/set up the Khandahar airport.
I understand that some Army people were a little pissed about him chosing the Marines; but he was like ~this is serious shit and I can’t bow to intraservice rivalry to get the job done; I need firepower now and the Marines can get there and the Army can’t [my paraphrasing].
I have no military background and I personally like the USMC esprit d’Corps; but will the Army eventually replace them?
Yes, the USA still needs the Corps. It is hard to explain why. The Marines serve a special niche in the military hierarchy. As has been said, Marines move fast. “Send in the Marines” has been a battle cry for over Two hundred and twenty-five years. Nothing can replace the United States Marine Corps.
Because they’re … well… THE ARMY and institutions define the groups that operate within them. It’s not like calling a different football play. The Marines are a different breed. Not better or worse, just different and they are a specialized tool.
For an individual or a group, to go balls out like the Marines do they have to believe they different and it’s a fairly ummm… “unique” mindset. Asking the Army to graft a Marinesque “SIR!! YES SIR!! RIGHT NOW SIR!” methodology to their operations and mean it just isn’t going to happen in an efficient manner within the Army.
I read an interesting essay that basically said “the marines have all the firepower we need for fixed land battles in the future, which will be sudden, and fast, and the winner will be the one who gets there firstest with the mostest.” It went to say that we should simply disband most of the army (leaving a division or two if they’re needed), and put those resources into elite army units, special forces and military intelligence. Beef up the air force and the naval air forces.
The author claimed to take his inspiration from Sun Tzu, and several prominent American military theoreticians of recent years who also were heavily into Sun.
Right. And conversely, we would not expect the Marines to have to manage – never mind field – anything resembling the Army’s XVIII Corps.
Losing the Marines would not eliminate the mission: the Army would have to add or convert 3 divisions to be forward-deployable medium infantry in self-contained frontline+support rapid-strike units of 1/9 or 1/3 or one whole division, with attached dedicated USAF air cover. Simpler to keep the Marines doing their thing (OK, maybe we should recommend they switch to decaf…)
As a (there’s no such thing as former) Marine who has also spent time in the Army (and currently USAF) I think astro is right on. Most of the Army units do not need, and wouldn’t tolerate the harsh treatment that’s required to keep Marines in the state of readiness they perpetually remain in.
Marines are smash-grab, high intensity assault troops. The Army is a long-haul, grind them-into-the-dirt main battle force. Two significantly different missions, requiring different tactics, equipment, and training. The Army is big and overwhelming, the Marines are small, fast, and hard-hitting, and that’s the way it should be.
With regards to “only the Marines are equipped to do amphibious landings”
That might have been their traditional mission based on what they did during WWII. My uncle went ashore at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. But is it really accurate? Not counting Somalia, when they came ashore and were greeted by the media, wasn’t Inchon the last major amphibious combat assault made by the Marines?
The biggest amphibious landing in history was D-Day and that was mostly an Army show (from an U.S. perspective, not to negate other Allied contributions). Why weren’t the Marines in Europe during WWII? They kicked ass in WWI. Did Army jealousy keep them out? The Marines got a lot of ink in the stateside newspapers at the time. Wasn’t it a Marine who was quoted as saying: “Retreat? Hell, we just got here” (I’m not sure about that quote).
Their amphibious capabilty is certainly valuable; how nervous was Saddam Huissan during the Gulf War with the USMC anchored off the coast of Kuwait? But it was the Marine tanks that were the “piston” in the ground assault into Kuwait.
Interesting. OK - I can see that. In fact, based on my own miltary experience, the Marine approach makes a lot of sense.
But that leads to another question: why not eliminate the army? Why not gear all your land forces for aggressive assault and quick resolution?
P.S.:
That’s one thing I never got about the American military approach - how is an “I’m on it, boss” any less efficient than “SIR YES SIR!!!”? Is it just a matter of training methods?
Name me a single war that’s actually been won by aggressive assault and quick resolution, and I’ll be able to name you ten that someone thought could be won that way and ended up getting his ass handed to him (more accurately, ended up way behind the lines hearing about how other people got their asses handed to them).
The fact is that war today is won by the exact same thing that every war ever has been won with: The kid on the ground with a rucksack and a rifle, saying, “This piece of land is mine, and you can’t have it.”
This has been true since the kid on the ground had a sharpened stick and it will be true long past the time that the mutant on the ground will have a man-portable pulse cannon.
The Marines are great at aggressive assault. They’re not so great at holding the land, and that’s fine, because it’s not their job.
**
That sort of thing really doesn’t happen that often outside of training. People have occasionally thought I was sucking up because I use “Sir” in just about every sentence when talking to my boss (and “Ma’am” when talking to his wife, even though she hates it). And I can’t remember the last time I yelled “SIR YES SIR” in any way but sarcastic.
Originally spoken by General George Patton, or a reasonable facimalie thereof:
Face it: you don’t win a war by playing defense. You win by hammering your enemy, day and night, without rest until one of you breaks. You win by calling all of the shots, by making sure the other guy only reacts, never acts. You don’t dig in - if you’re bigger than him, you attack; if you’re smaller, then you’re faster, so you hit him on the flanks, or you set an ambush. Is there anything here a Marine can’t do?
Oh, and yes, I can bring you examples. Just not American ones.
A Marine, no. The Marines, yes. There’s this:
Sustain the fight.
Marine organizations aren’t made to hammer the enemy, day and night, without rest. They’re made to hammer the enemy really hard, establish a foothold, and allow the Army to come in. If you make the Marine Corps large enough to sustain a fight, then you’ve made it the Army with better uniforms and lance corporals. There are strategic-level concerns that the Marines simply cannot address. Their medical, intelligence, communications and logistical functions are closely tied in to or entirely taken care of by the Navy.
Bear in mind that Patton commanded an organization that was larger than the entire Marine Corps.
**
Please share. And then I’ll give you ten counterexamples.