why do we need the marine corps
There are too many questions mixed together here; I'm going to try to separate them out. First, there is the error I addressed in my comments; the Marine Corps existed before the United States did. They are the oldest military service in the US military. For a brief history of the, see. I'm a REMF, and a Navy REMF at that, so I'm going to defer to them on their own history. Second, there is the question of whether they have any value? Whether they have ever saved the day. I strongly suggest that you not ask this around a Marine; I try not to insult people who make a habit of charging into machine gun fire. There are many possible responses, but I would suggest that you might want to google terms like
or perhaps, or. Third there is the question of why we have Marine Aviators. There is legitimate debate on this topic, but different services and different missions have very different needs for air support. Marines need close air support that is tightly integrated with their ground forces. Integrated Marine aviation provides that better than the Air Force does. I've got lots of friends and relatives in the air force, but even the best air force pilot doesn't understand the need for support to ground troops the way a Marine does; the Marine in that cockpit is both a Rifleman and a pilot. Every profession has specialists. You might as well ask why the Department of Defense needs a payroll office; after all the Bureau of Indian Affairs has payroll clerks - they could clearly do the job right?
Or why do I need an internist an orthopod and a neurosurgeon?? They all graduated from medical school right? Finally there is the question of whether we should have a unified military service (like the Canadians), or a branched military service (like US and UK and many other nations). That's not really appropriate for History. The answer to that question is entirely political. There are entrenched stakeholders who prefer things the way they are, and that kind of reform simply isn't the highest priority. Changes to the military are very costly -both in terms of dollars and mission effectiveness. Unless there is a compelling reason to make the change, it probably isn't a good idea. @korvinStarmast adds an excellent point, which I'll include here to avoid deletion: Form a purely military point of view, the Marines are the only force that inherently does warfare as part of its make up. The Marines were Joint before Joint was a thing, by about 50 years. (See development of Close air Support and Amphibious doctrine in the interwar period. ) In October 1957, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Randolph Pate sent Lieutenant General Victor Krulak a brief memo with a simple question: БWhy does the U. S. need a Marine Corps?
Б Recalling his work on a study in 1946, to save the Corps from Бsummary destructionБ by Marine-hating President Harry Truman, Krulak responded simply that the U. S. did not need a Marine Corps. As he later wrote in his book First to Fight, the United States didnБt need a lot of things, but the United States wanted a Marine Corps. At a recent meeting at the Brookings Institution, I had the opportunity to take in ideas from almost a platoon of senior officers of the USMC, and many less martial-looking think-tankers from around Washington. These prompted me to devise four incendiary questions about the best future for the service. As Krulak admitted in considering that weighty question, the U. S. Air Force flies pretty well, and the Army has shown at Normandy and elsewhere that it once could take beaches. In theory, any army or navy can train and equip landing troops without constituting a separate service. The Royal Australian Navy's helicopter carriersб Canberra and Adelaide б will soon carry troops of, and helicopters of both Army Aviation and the Fleet Air Arm. The French Armцe and Marine Nationale have a similar arrangement. But a look at comparative military organization worldwide suggests other models too. TodayБs Swedish Amphibious Corps was once part of the Coastal Artillery, which was once part of the Army, before being amalgamated with the marine regiments and mine units, and reassigned to the Navy in 1901.
Like the Royal Marines, they operate ; U. S. Marines rely on the U. S. Navy for anything larger than a rubber boat. More of What? American marines know that any of these models can work, so the service maintains a healthy paranoia about how to best serve national strategyБif only, as, to best serve the MarinesБ Few Good Men fanaticism for being Marines. They grouse incessantly about the NavyБs failure to budget for enough assault ships, knowing that marines without ships are like paratroopers without planes. Indeed, I heard one marine officer assert that demand from the regional commanders for conventional forces can justify a fleet of 50 assault ships. ThatБs easy when the four-stars have wars for which to prepare, but no budget battles to fight. To start the exercise, though, whatБs not in that demand? To what specifically should the Marines be comparing their own utility, with an eye towards grabbing their share a flatlining military budget? And of what should they be offering to build more? Whether characterizing themselves as amphibious or expeditionary, as AmericaБs 911 or crisis-response force, Marines emphasize that theyБre a bit more ready most days than the National Guard. As such, the Guard is not the organizational rival.
Plenty of Marines might be quite happy if the Regular Army and Air Force would focus on preparing for the Big War, so that Marines can claim authority over the small ones. Their post-Benghazi establishment of the special tiltrotors-and-infantry air-ground task forces was brilliant. Everyone seems to. The Army and the Air Force could have accomplished the same, but didnБt, if only because they still donБt play together quickly and seamlessly. All Marines do, and this can recommend future strategies. On What Kind of Ships? Second, if the Marines could budget for the ships they ride, how would the design of the individual ships differ from the pattern today, and how would it differ the overall composition of the fleet? Over time, I have garnered a few opinions from Marine officers, and most loudly about boats. The helicopter carriers America б (LHA-6) and Tripoli (LHA-7), plenty insist, should have been designed with well decks. Sometimes I wonder if the Corps doth protest too much. While future Americas will be their own subclass with well decks, Iб am still trying to understand how this dispute arose, for the whole point was to increase hangar bay and fuel capacity for the MarinesБ own rotorcraft and jump-jets. ItБs a unique organization strengthБgetting away with complaining about getting what you want.
- Views: 108
why do they call marines devil dogs
why do so many veterans become homeless
why women shouldnt be in the military
why do we have a dawn service on anzac day
why i don t support the troops