He said the Marines are “a department of the Navy” which is not correct. The Navy is entirely separate from the Marine Corps. Both organizations are components of THE Department of the Navy, though. I think Kazo may have been confused about the difference between the Navy and the Department of the Navy, which are different things. (And it’s an easy mistake to make if you don’t have a perverse fascination with bureaucracy like I do. )
So, to be clear, we have:
[ul]
[li]Department of Defense[/li][list]
[li]Department of the Air Force[/li][list]
[li]U.S. Air Force[/li][/ul]
[li]Department of the Army[/li][ul]
[li]U.S. Army[/li][/ul]
[li]Department of the Navy[/li][ul]
[li]U.S. Navy[/li][li]U.S. Marine Corps[/li][/ul]
[/list]
[/LIST]
The components in bold are civilian agencies overseen by appointed secretaries. They also all have other civilian agencies and offices in them not listed here. The underlined ones are the military services, overseen by four-star officers who together form the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is how things have been organized since the National Security Act of 1947. The Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 formed the Unified Combatant Command system which moved operational command away from the Joint Chiefs and placed it under direct control of the Secretary of Defense and the field commanders, but the org chart remains the same.
Up to and including the Second World War, the Marine Corps was fully part of the U.S. Navy, under the command of the admirals.
Because all the people who could do that before the war were dead by 1918. The Marine Corps was in many respects still a pre-war organisation full of pre-war fighters, very scarce by that stage as the conscript armies got much abbreviated training - and mechanised methods of accomplishing the same thing had taken over in most of them.
Cite, please! This observation flies in the face of every history I’ve read about the formation of the Marines, including histories that were clearly not written by the Marines themselves.
And which ports? If you’re right, there should be some record that Marines were involved in defending a colonial port. I don’t think there is such a record. To the extent that land forces fought the British over ports, it was always the Continental Army: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and New London come to mind immediately.
Just the opposite seems to be true. Maj. Nicolas led the Continental Marines on some amphibious raids in the Caribbean against British outposts, and Marines served on ships.
In short, the Continental Marines were organized to serve aboard ships in the Continental Navy, just as Royal Marines served on Royal Navy ships, Dutch Marines served on Royal Dutch Navy ships, French Marines, well, you get the picture.
Separate “marine” forces, in short, were common in all European navies.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I should have heavily qualified my statement. I did quite a bit of research on the history of the Marine Corps back in the 80s for a computer game on them, and I’m relying on my 30 year old memory of that. I don’t even have a copy of the game available to me any more, a shame as I put a lot of work into the historical notes which in those pre-net days I compiled from libraries, including that of the local US Consulate here. In short, while I’m fairly confident of the info I can’t support it I so shouldn’t have posted that part - it wasn’t really relevant to my reply anyway.
Differentiating the “A Department of the Navy” and “In the Department of the Navy” seems myopic and a distinction without a difference, even here on the Dope.
We can all agree on this. The Marine Corps is a distinct Service that is part of the Department of the Navy.
A Marine and a sailor happen to be standing next to each other while peeing at the urinals in a men’s room. The sailor finishes first, zips up and heads for the door. The Marine calls after him: “In the Marines, they teach us to wash our hands after we piss.” The sailor stops and replies: “In the Navy, they teach us not to piss on our hands.”
A Marine and a sailor happen to be standing next to each other outside a movie theater. The Marine notices the sailor staring at a poster of a beautiful actress and jokes, “I’ll bet I know what you’re thinking of.”
The sailor snaps, “Don’t you jarheads know not to end a sentence with a preposition?”
The Marine says, “Sorry. I’ll bet I know what you’re thinking of, asshole.”
Size and scope. The Seals can do a small mission. Small in terms of firepower and duration. And the seals man-for-man are better than the Marine Corps. (Not a slight on the Corps in any way) The Marine Corps can bring some heavy fire power (including air support) for a more sustained mission. Less heavy and sustained than the Army of course. There are about 2,500 seals and about 200,000 Marines (on active duty).
Think a small five man SWAT team vice the state police.
I’ve worked in State gov for years and am (unfortunately) familiar with dept budgets.
The Marines have a better situation with their budget by reporting directly to Sec Nav. As a separate force they should have their own line budget that’s apart from the Navy. Before, when they were directly under the Navy their budget would have been in their big pot. If money was needed for maintenance on subs or battleships it would be easy to divert money from the Marines’ budget. Someone earlier mentioned the massive cuts in Marines during the 1930’s. That shouldn’t happen with their separate chain of command.
Also it’s easier to report directly to Sec Nav. Rather than some admiral in the Navy. We have dept’s move around in the org chart frequently in State Gov. Same thing. They want to report to someone higher up and they want their own line budget.
The Marine Corp has had their own budgets for a long, long time, but it still starts with SECNAV.
All that means is instead of OSD splitting up the funding for the Marine Corps, the Navy and Marine Corps make their pitch to SECNAV who does that. About 10 years ago, the Navy/Marine Corps split was worked out at the two-star level, but now it’s become so acrimonious that’s done at SECNAV.
Keep in mind that the Secretary of the Navy approves and forwards both the Navy and Marine Corps budgets up the chain. Money talks as they say. That is why I always say that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy. Operationally they are separate, but financially there are under SECNAV.
Once the budget goes to Congress nine months before the fiscal year begins, the Navy cannot take funding from the Marine Corps (or anyone else for that matter) without Congressional approval. So the belief that Navy will take funding for the Marine Corps whenever they feel the need isn’t true.
)
