Treaty of Tripoli - Is the US A Christian Nation? Hmm...

[David Floyd]

I'm not anti-Marine - quite the opposite in fact. But some of your points are just plain wrong.

There were plenty of islands taken by only Marine forces (Peleliu, Saipan, the Marshall islands, Iwo Jima, etc.)

Yes, but not the major campaigns - Guadalcanal, New Guinea, the Philippines, Okinawa.

and the Marines were the primary force (the tip of the spear so the speak) throughout the entire war, Army forces being used primarily in support and for consolidation/mopping up, because, as you said, there's just plain more of them.

Again, not exactly, and especially not true in New Guinea, Okinawa, and the Philippines.

The Marine Corps was also used as the primary battle force against the Germans in the First World War

No, that's demonstrably wrong. Even Belleau Wood, probably the most famous use of Marines in the war, only involved one brigade, and that brigade fought alongside the Army's 2nd Division. At it's HEIGHT in WW1, the USMC had a TOTAL strength of just under 75,000 - or, around what 3 Army Divisions of the time mustered.

and again in Korea (the defense of Pusan then the Inchon landings).

Again, no. The Pusan Perimeter was initially defended by the US 8th Army, consisting of 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions and the 1st Cavalry Division, subsequently reinforced by 2nd Infantry Division, 5th RCT, a British Brigade, and the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade, and, near the end of the battle, the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade. The 1st PMB was built around the 5th Marines, a MAG, and some artillery - around 6000 Marines in all.

As for Inchon, yes, the assault troops were primarily Marines - mainly the 1st Marine Division. However, at no point did the USMC constitute the primary ground force in Korea, or even close to it.

Pound for pound though, it's no comparison. Who does much more with much less?

True, but disingenuous, as you have to factor in the cost of the United States Navy, which transports the Marines and defends them en route.

[N35t0r]

Who does logistics for the marines? Navy, I'm guessing, so it's much more than just getting them there and back...

[David Floyd]

Yep, also that.

[N35t0r]

Strip logistics off the army and total cost per soldier should go down quite a lot.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Marine Corps has logistics... but it doesn't have a medical establishment.

Still, even with additions and deductions, the Marine Corps still is going to cost less per man than the Army. The Marine Corps is notorious for frugality and using hand-me-down equipment.

All the stuff you said just proves the point that the sheer numerical and budget advantage of the Army gives it an advantage in large scale war and occupation. The Army can play the attrition game while the Marine Corps concentrates on locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy by fire and maneuver. Give the Corps the number of men the Army has while maintaining the same level of discipline and you're kidding yourself if you don't think the planet's best fighting force wouldn't be able to handle large scale conflict. Now of course, realistically, it's not going to be possible to maintain the same standards with that many men (look at drop rates in boot camp between the two branches and lower Army recruiting standards).

[David Floyd]

So, in other words, you're not going to address my points about your obvious exaggeration of the role of the USMC in WW1, WW2, and Korea?

[Elok]

What does the Treaty of Tripoli have to do with George Washington?

Poetic license. I meant GW as a rhetorical stand-in for the Founding Fathers in general--my point is, we obviously don't actually care what our founders wanted or, for example, we'd want a lot more of Jefferson's yeoman farmers. We readily ignore their wishes when they oppose ours, but trot them out as examples of our obvious rectitude on the points we agree on. Which, of course, is silly. Whether James Madison or Ben Franklin wanted us to be a Christian Nation or not is irrelevant; they also wanted the runner-up for the presidency to become vice president, and for the vote to be restricted to property-owning white males. We seem to have nixed both of those, among several other things.

[Al B. Sure!]

So, in other words, you're not going to address my points about your obvious exaggeration of the role of the USMC in WW1, WW2, and Korea?

Tip of the spear in all conflicts. What would the Korean War have been without the Inchon landings or without the Chosin breakout? What would the Pacific War have been like with the Army trying to take all those islands? The Marine Corps wisely developed amphibious doctrine pre-war. Just like the Marine Corps developed anti-guerrilla tactics in the Latin American wars and vertical envelopment with helicopters in Korea both of which proved invaluable in Vietnam. The Corps has been in the fore-front of warfighting doctrine in all US conflicts. Force multiplication is the strength of the Corps despite smaller numbers and less funding.

But of course all branches contributed. My beef was with Oerdin diminishing the obvious value of the Marine Corps.

if the Marines just can't handle it, then they call in the Army.

From wikipedia in reference to Inchon...

In order to accomplish such a large amphibious operation, MacArthur requested the use of United States Marine Corps expeditionary forces, having become familiar with their ability to integrate amphibious operations in the Pacific during World War II. However, the Marines at that point were still recovering from a series of severe program cutbacks instituted by the Truman administration and Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson. Indeed, Johnson had tried to eliminate the Marines entirely and slashed Marine expeditionary forces from a World War II peak of 300,000 men to just over 27,000. Much of the Marines' landing craft and amphibious carriers had been sold off, scrapped, or transferred to the exclusive use of the U.S. Army.

That kind of says it all now doesn't it?

[Al B. Sure!]

VJ:

you said...

Of course US wanted to appear as a non-Christian nation when dealing with Muslim authorities which had very bad relations with Christian nations of Europe over religion.

I found this on wikipedia:

The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However, it is the English text which was ratified by Congress.

Apparently, the part about not being a Christian nation wasn't even included in the Arabic version! So it couldn't be what you said. They weren't just trying to be appear non-Christian to the Muslims.