Who are tougher? French Foreign Legion or the Marines?

[Barnabas]

The Brazilian special forces who fight the Narcos in the shanty towns see a lot of action

[Felch]

I'm aware of the different historical roles.

Let me put it this way.

What now does the Army do that the Marines don't?

They have different philosophies of war. The Army believes in the primacy of artillery. The Corps believes in riflemen killing everything they see. The Army is a giant logistical machine, and it takes it a long time to get up to speed. The Corps is lighter on its feet, but isn't intended to fight long campaigns. In essence, the historical rationale still exists. The Marine Corps is the Navy's way of getting in the ground game. And since America is so wealthy, we can afford to maintain a parallel "army" of jarheads.

[Wezil]

Check your budget numbers Felch.

You just think you can afford it.

[Felch]

We can afford it, we just have to cut Social Security and Medicare.

[Asher]

[Provost Harrison]

The SBS or SAS, of course

[SpencerH]

I just watched a documentary about the US marines attack on the taliban in Marjah (Afghanistan). I have to be honest and say that I was unimpressed. As far as I could tell, they were attacking an equal-sized force. Despite their overwhelming firepower advantage, it took them days to get moving once in contact with tribesmen armed with rifles and a few automatic weapons. It seems as though the SOP for these units is to stop at the slightest provocation and call in heavy weapons (ARTY, close air support, etc). I think General Puller ("chesty") would have been appalled. Admittedly, that procedure may save marine lives in the short term but it costs civilian casualties (which they were trying to avoid) and their avoidance of close combat meant that the battle went on for much longer (which resulted in sniper casualties as the battle continued) than would have occured if they had just "got stuck in" and killed the bastards quickly.

The fact that they are hauling around a tonload of body armor and other crap means that they can only move at a crawl. They reminded me of WWI tanks with their limited armour protection and inability to maneuver.

It made me think of times (long past) when we trained with the US army and Marines. We found that they had very poor patrolling skills and were easy targets at night (this is long before good night vision equipment). To be fair the units we harrassed were oriented for mechanized warfare, patrolling being more the pervue of units such as the Rangers. It doesnt seem as though things have changed much except that they seem to include a sniper with the fire teams.

[Heraclitus]

We can afford it, we just have to cut Social Security and Medicare.

[DaShi]

I just watched a documentary about the US marines attack on the taliban in Marjah (Afghanistan). I have to be honest and say that I was unimpressed. As far as I could tell, they were attacking an equal-sized force. Despite their overwhelming firepower advantage, it took them days to get moving once in contact with tribesmen armed with rifles and a few automatic weapons. It seems as though the SOP for these units is to stop at the slightest provocation and call in heavy weapons (ARTY, close air support, etc). I think General Puller ("chesty") would have been appalled. Admittedly, that procedure may save marine lives in the short term but it costs civilian casualties (which they were trying to avoid) and their avoidance of close combat meant that the battle went on for much longer (which resulted in sniper casualties as the battle continued) than would have occured if they had just "got stuck in" and killed the bastards quickly.

The fact that they are hauling around a tonload of body armor and other crap means that they can only move at a crawl. They reminded me of WWI tanks with their limited armour protection and inability to maneuver.

It made me think of times (long past) when we trained with the US army and Marines. We found that they had very poor patrolling skills and were easy targets at night (this is long before good night vision equipment). To be fair the units we harrassed were oriented for mechanized warfare, patrolling being more the pervue of units such as the Rangers. It doesnt seem as though things have changed much except that they seem to include a sniper with the fire teams.

The purpose of the marines now is to locate the enemy by marching around until they are shot at. Then the CIA can send its unmanned drones in to do the job.

[Hauldren Collider]

We can afford it, we just have to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The military is bigger than it needs to be but having both an army and a marine corps is a sensible thing. And, redistribution

[Asher]

Duplicated needless military: sensible.
Healthcare for your citizens: not sensible.

[Riesstiu IV]

Don't you understand?! We need to have absolute military superiority over farmers and herders armed with Ak-47s and RPGs.

[Al B. Sure!]

I was being tongue in cheek but there is some truth to what I said:

Hey really, Asher, if the US should be less involved in foreign affairs, we really don't need an Army. The Marine Corps can maintain its role as a rapid deployment expeditionary force for UN operations like Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in the 90's or Bosnia.

Is anyone going to invade the US? Do we really need an army? We could probably get by with a smaller quick-deployment, self-sustaining military force with combined arms capability and a history of counter-insurgency warfare going back to the Banana Wars and the Boxer Rebellion. Send them on peace-keeping or when tinpot dictators want to commit genocide.

No takers? Between the Air Force and the Navy, no country could ever invade the US so we don't really need a standing half a million man strong active Army, do we? And we still do have the National Guard. The Marine Corps could be our light expeditionary force for UN stuff.

If you say it makes sense to get rid of the Corps, if you ask me, and if you feel America should be less involved in global wars, then it should make MORE sense to get rid of the Army and keep the Corps.

[Al B. Sure!]

Robert Gates just today:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Gates-Tells-US-Army-to-Take-New-Approach-116978713.html

Secretary Gates traveled to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York to speak to the Army’s future officers about their careers. He told them the traditional U.S. Army, with large units using tanks and other heavy equipment, is fast becoming obsolete.

"The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they army or marines, airborne, infantry or special operations is self evident, given the likelihood of counter-terrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response or stability or security force assistance missions," he said. "But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined."

Gates said large-scale conflicts with other big countries will likely be fought mainly with air and naval forces.

The defense secretary, who says he will retire this year, urged future leaders to ensure that the army does not revert to its traditional role as a heavy land force, and continues to prepare to defend the nation against what he sees as more likely scenarios.

So Gates is saying the Army should be more like the Corps or face being obsolete. So which branch is the redundancy? Looks like the Army is

[Asher]

Duh.

Marines are cannon fodder, the Army is basically a foreign police force for occupied territories. Fund them accordingly.