| Author | Message | ||
     Boney95 |
This is a bunch of Bull Shit!! God help the U.S. if we get rid of the Marine Corps. Anybody can be a soldier, but only a few can be Marines. Semper Fi Boney Found this at this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487045 70704576274902102526050.html?mod=rss_opinion_main In Washington these days, the Defense Department is looking to cut its budget and the Marine Corps especially is reviewing its future role. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has spoken of "anxiety" that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned the Corps into a "second land army," and he has cancelled major Marine weapons systems, such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No institution is sacrosanct, so it's worth asking: Why should we maintain the Marine Corps in the future? The utility of any institution must be balanced against the opportunity cost of maintaining it. In arguing against maintaining a Marine Corps in the future, one must prove either that what the Marines do isn't necessary, or that it is necessary but that another organization can do it more efficiently and effectively. In 1954, the political scientist Samuel Huntington argued that each service was built around a "strategic concept"—"the fundamental element of [a] service . . . its role or purpose in implementing national policy." A service's strategic concept answers the "ultimate question: What function do you perform which obligates society to assume responsibility for your maintenance?" The current Marine Corps strategic concept envisions an expeditionary force in readiness capable of responding rapidly to the full range of crises and contingencies, primarily but not exclusively from the sea, with integrated and balanced air, ground and logistics teams. To this end, the Marines provide a responsive and scalable "middleweight" force that is light enough to get to where it is needed quickly but heavy enough—and with sufficient logistics support—to prevail against an adversary upon arrival. Due to the proliferation of high-tech defensive weapons, the most controversial element of the Marines' strategic concept are amphibious assaults against defended littorals. What most people envision when they think of an amphibious assault is a World War II scenario with landing craft churning toward a defended beach. But today's amphibious assaults seek to avoid the strength of the enemy's defenses, exploiting seams and gaps in those defenses in order to achieve surprise. For example, in October 2001, Naval Task Force 58—commanded by then-Brig. Gen. James Mattis, who is now commander of U.S. Central Command—conducted an amphibious assault to seize the airfield at Kandahar, Afghanistan. Gen. Mattis's force of two infantry battalions, along with fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and logistics support, thrust 450 nautical miles from ships off the coast of Pakistan to Kandahar in only 48 hours. In addition to conducting amphibious operations and providing forces for two wars, over the past decade the Marines have also been engaged in the Caucasus, Africa, the Pacific and Latin America. They have provided training and support for friends and allies and have responded to numerous crises: noncombatant evacuation operations in Liberia (2005) and Lebanon (2006), as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations in Indonesia, the U.S. Gulf region (2005), Haiti (2008 and 2009), Pakistan (2010) and Japan (2011). Marines routinely split amphibious ready groups into smaller packages to provide a variety of capabilities over a wider geographic area, reassembling to conduct larger operations. Marine assets are currently involved in aircraft-recovery operations in support of NATO forces in Libya. So it would seem that what the Marines do is of value to the United States. But could another service do what the Marines do? The answer, of course, is yes. But the opportunity cost would be very high. All of the U.S. military services are carrying out missions in support of their own strategic concepts. Asking another service to do what the Marines do risks crowding out what they already do. Each of the other services operates primarily in one "domain": the Army on land, the Navy on water, and the Air Force in air and space. The Marines operate in a "lane" that intersects all three domains. In that lane, the Marines possess what economists would call comparative advantage. What about the charge that the Marines have become a second land army in Iraq and Afghanistan? As the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Joseph Dunford, recently remarked, the Marines have no reason to apologize for sustained operations ashore. Such operations, he observed, are part of the basic "sticker price" of the Marines: the requirement to carry out missions as directed by the president, an obligation Marines have met in Korea and Vietnam as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, an important part of Marine Corps tradition has been to prepare to fight the kind of small-unit wars we have confronted over the past decade. The Marines are an expeditionary force with a maritime soul. Of course, the current security environment requires all services to become more expeditionary than was the case during the Cold War. But as former Marine Commandant Gen. Carl Mundy was fond of saying, "'Expeditionary' is not a mission. It's a mindset." The Marines have developed this expeditionary mindset over decades, and it is something that will serve the nation well in the future. Mr. Owens is professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, editor of Orbis, the quarterly journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and author of "US Civil-Military Relations After 9/11: Renegotiating the Civil-Military Bargain" (Continuum, 2011). | ||
| Josh_ |
Which part is bullshit? The copyright violation? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
If they are looking to cut a useless armed uniform service branch.... Why dont they start with the one that got its charter in the ACA ?.... of course I would be out of a consulting gig, but shiat comes to shove, I would rather stand with the USMC than a bunch of MSW's with an agenda. | ||
| Patrick2cents |
I think we'll be fine for a while yet. (Message edited by patrick2cents on May 04, 2011) | ||
| Nillaice |
OPSEC. ... we did some stuff somewhere, and came back. i wanna come home edit; i'm just making a comment on the general terms and descriptions above. not calling anyone out or really adding any value. (Message edited by nillaice on May 04, 2011) | ||
| 99savage |
Ain't gonn'a happen - Not now, not ever Along w/ the rest of the services, might get cut back - Might get aviation assets more appropriate for their mission - Might & probably should lose some of the hi-tech toys in the pipeline - But rest assured there is no politician in either party will ever have to stones to do anything besides smile & cooperate w/ the Marines | ||
| Patrick2cents |
Nillaice, everything I posted was releasable. I know opsec is a big deal. that's why I only posted what has already been released by our PAO. If it makes you feel better I'll take it down. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
Throughout the years, there has been talk of doing away with the Marine Corps. Yet they are still here!!! More often than not, they are the recipients of hand me down equipment and technology. Yet they rarely lose a battle. As a whole the Marines are some of the toughest SOBs on the planet!!! The Marines are best at being able to deploy on short notice anywhere in the world with enough assests to secure and hold an objective until a larger, more permenate force can relieve them. Though in times of draw out war, they are also capable of sustained operations. Semper Fi! | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
THE MARINE CORPS WILL LIVE FOREVER AND SO YOU WILL LIVE FOREVER! | ||
| Sayitaintso |
From the above article The utility of any institution must be balanced against the opportunity cost of maintaining it. In arguing against maintaining a Marine Corps in the future, one must prove either that what the Marines do isn't necessary, or that it is necessary but that another organization can do it more efficiently and effectively. To start with I am NOT anti Marines, I grew up on Quantico, and to this day my dad is still a Marine. Even though he hasn't been active in over 25 years, they call it "retired" but he hasn't changed all that much. Anyway, my point/question is: That statement is backwards....any part of the government (military included) should have to prove that what they do is necessary and can't be done by another organization better/cheaper. Not someone form the outside having to prove that the part of the government in question isn't needed. maybe it is a matter of semantics but, to me, its important that the government prove its worth and not the public/"civilians" having to prove something in the government is not needed. IMO the Marines shouldn't have a problem doing that. But they should stay as a rapid reaction type force and not get bloated and weighed down like the Army. Sometimes while growing up I noticed there was a certain amount of envy toward the other branches of the military from the Marines b/c of the "cool toys" the other branches got and they didn't. What "they" (mostly senior officers O-5/6 and above) seemed to lose sight of was that they were better fighting men. "They" would never come out and say it the way I just did, but that was the impression I got from listening to them talk. In the immortal words of John Candy, the Marines should be "a lean mean fighting machine". | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
Then Marines will always be one up on every other branch of service.... | ||
| Paint_shaker |
LMAO at Wolf's last post!!! | ||
| Bartimus |
Semper Fi ! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
think real hard about it, do you really want an unemployed arm of the military that VALUES the Constitution?..... there are dumber things to meddle with, I cant think of them now. | ||
| Indy_bueller |
Anybody can be a soldier, but only a few can be Marines. As far as that statement goes, bite me. (Message edited by Indy_Bueller on May 05, 2011) | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Anybody can be a soldier, but only a few can be Marines. As far as that statement goes, bite me. I'll quote one of my dad's favorite sayings here.... "Naw, anyone can be a Marine, all they need is a lobotomy" | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
Frank Skinner had a good zinger about Marines he told me at Buelltoberfest.... I must have killed that brain cell... for the life of me, I can'tremember it... But I always say... "Once a Marine always mental" | ||
| Hootowl |
Had a buddy who was(is) a Marine. We had been out drinking hard the night before. He shows up at my barracks at 7AM having just completed his daily 6 mile run. I was sweating from the hangover, he was barely perspiring from the run. They're a different breed. Thank God for Marines. | ||
| Indy_bueller |
Hell you don't have to be a Marine to do that. I did that kind of thing many times. | ||
| 2734 |
If he was barely pespiring then he was really dehydrated from the alchohol. LoL I've done that a bunch of times when I was still a Combat Engineer. My oldest cousin was Force Recon in the late 80's. He had a few good stories to tell. I doubt the Marines are goin away anytime soon but I do think thay are being used outside of their context right now. (Message edited by 273-4 on May 05, 2011) | ||
| Brumbear |
I love the MARINES but kiss my ass go ARMY you chowhounds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Exf1NDWeY all kiddin aside we need the marines we need em all!!!!! |
