Identity Crisis? What…???
This came to my attention while I was searching for something like a recipe for frog legs or maybe beef Wellington en croute.
It’s not easy being green, especially when you’re a Marine, but the nominee to be the 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps, LtGen Berger, has been sent a request from one MAJ Spaeder to solve the Corps’ identity crisis.
Now, I know that Marines are famous for their propensity to dive into something with no thought to their own safety, a situation I’d find very admirable if I were subjected to the Perils of Pauline. However, as time has progressed in the last few decades, the Jarheads have become so inundated with “do this, do that, and do all those other things, and solve those other problems, too” that they hardly have time to think, never mind keeping the brass polished and the smoking lamps lit.
I think MAJ Spaeder’s questions are valid, but one must ask, will this apply to the Marines in the future when the Space Force goes active? Will they be expected to do hull repair, which is really the Navy’s portion? Or will they leave all that to the Fleet’s HTs (hull technicians) and just do their best to not wreck the dropships while making landfall?
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Marine Corps
Well, they wanted to be “like” the Army in capability…apparently unaware that the Army has a great deal of departmental work around the world not focused on combat operations, but essential to the conduct of combat operations.
The Marines should do none of that…at all. That is what the Navy can already do…not to mention that USMC combat units could conceivably be based and trained at the same bases the Army or Navy already pays for…just a thought.
I personally think the USMC got sold a bill of goods by former Commandants and the fallout is just too deep to shovel all at once…
Interesting questions posed by the author, but I think the roles and missions issues go far beyond just the Marines. However, like all organizations the Marines should concentrate on those capabilities that are unique to them and that they do well which are focused on the fighting from the sea and ditch those that are done best by others (most cyber and MARSOC).
the Marines should concentrate on those capabilities that are unique to them and that they do well which are focused on the fighting from the sea and ditch those that are done best by others (most cyber and MARSOC). I can see the attractiveness of such a simple philosophy but I think it runs headlong into the problem of how it integrates into actions the messiness of the real world. Taken to its extreme, for example, the above-described philosophy would have meant Army units doing multiple tours in Afghanistan while USMC units continued to sail around on ships and train in the US, serving, at best, in a tertiary role to all the combat that is taking place far, far from the littorals and from the oceans. Ditto for Iraq and Syria, also far from the oceans (yes I know both countries have coastlines but the fighting wasn’t anywhere near those.) Having Marines participate in ongoing operations – even those far from the coasts – accomplishes two things: First of all, it lifts some of the burden off the Army and second, it gives the Marines “skin in the game.” Without that, come budget time, Congress might be inclined to say “why do we need to spend $x million on this proposed Marine weapons system or upgrade in facilities when all the current fighting is being done by the Army?” There is also a real benefit to Marines, who are supposed to be proficient in ground combat, actually engaging in ground combat because there is no substitute for experience in war. Holding the Marines in reserve and not putting them into the fray not only deprives the commander of the benefit of the Marine’s skills, it also deprives the Marines of learning the lessons of modern combat first-hand, which is something that any ground combat force needs. I can understand the good Major’s concern that if the Marines become “just another ground combat branch”, i.e. the Army but with funny lingo and sharper uniforms, then there might be overwhelming pressure to just absorb them into the Army. But I think… Read more »
I agree. The Marines are supposed to be more flexible than the Army, so I don’t see any identity crisis here at all.
After all, the amphibious landings at the beaches of Normandy were done by Army guys, so what is the real issue?
True dat EX, but remember that they almost failed too on Omaha. That would not have even been a going concern if Marines had done it. There is a story about the Marines out on the ships nearly supporting the landings on Omaha that you may not have heard about, but it came to naught. But since it ain’t their specialty one would not expect them to do it perfectly.
Not one of the things the Army has ever really done well.
“There is a story about the Marines…”
There are lots of stories about the Marines.
Some of them are even true.
A Marines main duty is to bitch.complain.and moan and groan
He was my battalion commander. Total shitbag. He must know where all the buy-me-drinky bodies are hidden because how he achieved that is beyond me.
Which one, FC? the Major or the General?
Berger.
For nearly 244 years the Marine Corps has done what it is best at….Being Marines….They do it quite well, it ain’t broke so it don’t need fixin. If you got something that needs breaking, send in the Marines. This must be about the money.
Where is that funky video of the Marines in action accompanied by Toby Keith’s ‘Call the Marines”?