Could the last days of the Marine Corps be here?

As the article points out, there have always been discussions about disbanding the Marine Corps; and there always will be discussions. Marine Corps leaders have historically been aware of the danger of becoming a second Army, and thus redundant; and have worked hard to think outside the box, and to provide a value added service to the nation beyond what is provided by the other branches.

I personally don't see the Marine Corps ever being disbanded, no matter how many discussions on the subject are held. Principally among the reasons I don't see the Marines being disbanded is often pointed to by detractors as a liability - the Marine Corps isn't an independent branch, it is part of the Department of the Navy (and Marine Corps.) I don't see it as a liability though. It is that special relationship that allows the Marine Corps to be an effective, forward deployed force in readiness. The business suits may look at the question and wonder if we really need a Marine Corps, but Naval Officers, by and large, understand that the symbiotic relationship between the Navy and Marine Corps is a serious force multiplier for both services, and provides for a near unique level of capability. So, not only will the Marine Corps resist being disbanded, the Navy will similarly defend its continued existence.

Further, the idea that amphibious landings are obsolete is a fallacy. Large scale World War II style amphibious landings against major world powers are indeed obsolete, but the Marine Corps understands this, and is continually working to reshape its capabilities to provide for a littoral combat capability that is not at all obsolete in today's non-polarized world. Given that two thirds of the earth's surface is covered with water, there will always be a need to control coastlines and ports, and to approach nations from the water.

 

The arguments change from time to time but I see the reasoning behind it in this administration as being a little more...nefarious isn't the right word but it's headed in the right direction. The Marine Corps has a history, starting with Semper Fi, of being just that...Loyal, Faithful, True to the End. That is the last thing this administration wants or needs.

A well trained, and I do mean well trained, fighting force whose allegiance isn't to a man or an office but to the Country they love. A branch of the service that always has and always will, to a man (or woman), taken The Oath as seriously as life or death (no disrespect to the other branches of service but to hear my brother talk, it's scary how many are in just for the paycheck). This administration does NOT want or need that force around, period! They are an impediment, nothing more.

Thank GOD for the US Marines and may they stand as a bulwark.

----
If I sound overly melodramatic it's because I'm in the middle of a purge/cleanse...long story, Icefoot knows what I'm talking about, and when I read the OP I damned near burst into tears. Now THAT would have been a sight here at work...

 

As if that would ever happen anytime in the foreseeable future.....

 

I notice an inordinate number of Marines among Oath Keepers compared to their percentage of vets/military as a whole.

This is not an attitude DC wants to foster these days.

 

just send in the sons and daughters of our elected officials.

 

Do away with the Marine Corps??? As important as traditions are, even if the functions of the marine corps were devolved on to other services, the loss of capabilities for the Defence of the USA and it's ability to project force around the world would be considerably diminished. It is a loss of capability that the PRC must look at with much approval.

The logic of doing away with the Marine Corps is like deciding that a pit bull could be more economically managed by removing one leg....and re-allocating the flesh to make the other three legs stronger....and expecting it to be as capable as before surgery. Might just as well cut off its nuts as well....though....cutting off the nuts of some of those in the five sided building might be a better option.

 

BT, easy on my toes my friend--lol. The whole of the armed forces is a team--different parts have different tasks. Today it seems that the hierarchy is the anus instead of the head. But that is self evident to many.

 

Does Obama REALLY want a few hundred thousand pissed off Marines at his doorstep?

When you want a group of troops who, with no more than basic training, will stand their ground, use the rifle to good effect, never abandon their brother in arms and will make the enemy bleed for every inch of ground, then send in the Marines. Whatever they do to make Marines in basic they come out forged tough as steel in spirit. Not tough talking types. But I have seen a couple face down tough odds by shear will, and some who endured a lot of pain without a comment.

 

What we need is a few hundred politicians and a few thousand bureaucrats replaced ASAP. Sad that we have the crowd up there now that is the way they are.

 

Actually a better argument would be to keep the Marines and put them in charge of the Navy.

The mission of the Marines has not changed, that are now and should remain America's rapid deployment force.

The Navy on the other hand is no longer needed to fight other Navies in surface combat. What they are needed for is to get ground pounders and aircraft into an op area as quick as possible.

 

I think this suggestion will have the old salts at SM rolling around on the deck in apoplexy....Marines are excellent at what they do...but driving vessels and naval strategy and tactical ship handling is possibly not some of them...sure, the Navy provides a taxi service for the marines for inshore assault landings by landing craft or helo, but the navy has a much broader range of strategic tasks, than just as a taxi service for assaulting marines. Yes, surface vessels no longer duke it out with gunnery these days...though they'll give pirate boats a grand kick in the arse with their gunnery...they still have a role in convoy protection, and in destroying opponent naval forces with stand off missiles, drones and aircraft. Naval blockades and interdiction of opponent merchant maritime operations are other tasks not requiring a significant USMC presence.

let each service perform its designated role, and do what it does best.

 

I'm not talking about changing the Navy's strategic missions, just the who works for who part. The Navy would still maintain operational control of its fleet.

It would not effect much of the day to day operations of each service, but it would have a significant effect on budgeting and long term mission focus.

Why is a Navy Admiral better suited to run the whole shebang than a Marine General?

 

As long as there are oceans, there will be a need for a Navy, and as long as there is a Navy, there will be a need for a corps of Marines. The Greek and Phoenician navies recognized this in 500 BCE (and before). The Marines' mission, composition, and uniform may change, but they are a fact of warfare.