Who are tougher? French Foreign Legion or the Marines?

[Al B. Sure!]

Duh.

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

And yet when there are peace-keeping operations such as in Lebanon in the 1980's, Somalia in the early 90's, etc. the US sends the Corps, not the Army.

Not to mention all the banana wars in which the Marine Corps were a police force throughout Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1920's and 30's.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Marine Corps can deploy much faster than the Army can. That's just the nature of the beast because the Army is so much larger and has doctrine relying heavily on the use of armor and artillery. It takes time for the Army to deploy whereas a Marine Expeditionary Unit can deploy anywhere in the world within 48 hours.

Like I said, if the Air Force, Navy, and National Guard can protect our soil and the Marine Corps can be our quick-strike force, what the hell do we need half a million active personnel in an Army for?

If you want to get rid of one branch, Asher, it's obvious which one is the superfluous redundancy.

[Asher]

And yet when there are peace-keeping operations such as in Lebanon in the 1980's, Somalia in the early 90's, etc. the US sends the Corps, not the Army.

Lebanon and Somalia weren't important enough for the Army.

Not to mention all the banana wars in which the Marine Corps were a police force throughout Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1920's and 30's.

All the more reason the Marine Corps are not useful anymore. They're clearly not being used like Marines are supposed to anyway.

If you want to get rid of one branch, Asher, it's obvious which one is the superfluous redundancy.

Yes, the Marines. They're obsolete, period. There's no reason to have "power projection from the sea", which is basically their mandate. Power projection is done via the air these days.

The Army needs to be modernized and the Marines need to be eliminated. There is far more of a need for extended-stay policing (which the Army should be better at) than quick-strikes from the sea. Really, Alby, this is obvious ****.

[Tupac Shakur]

If you want to get rid of one branch, Asher, it's obvious which one is the superfluous redundancy.

Yes, the Air Force.

[Asher]

Why not just eliminate all of them and create a new force called the American Forces?

Take Canada's lead. It's quite clear they all overlap these days anyway, and they take tremendous overhead maintaining them all separately.

[Tupac Shakur]

Why not just eliminate all of them and create a new force called the American Forces?

Take Canada's lead. It's quite clear they all overlap these days anyway, and they take tremendous overhead maintaining them all separately.

[Al B. Sure!]

Why not just eliminate all of them and create a new force called the American Forces?

Take Canada's lead. It's quite clear they all overlap these days anyway, and they take tremendous overhead maintaining them all separately.

No. Specialization allows concentration in specific core competencies. A merged 'Forces' is stupid. They'll be bad at everything and good at nothing.

[Tupac Shakur]

You don't need to have separate branches with redundant procurement and administrative functions in order to have specialization, you ****.

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces." This singular institution consists of three main branches: Maritime Command (MARCOM), Land Force Command (LFC), and Air Command (AIRCOM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces

Specialization!

[Asher]

You don't need to have separate branches with redundant procurement and administrative functions in order to have specialization, you ****.

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces." This singular institution consists of three main branches: Maritime Command (MARCOM), Land Force Command (LFC), and Air Command (AIRCOM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces

Specialization!

Why have multiple forces to engage on land in separate services? Ditto for the air?

The MARCOM doesn't fly planes, the LFC doesn't sail ships, and the AIRCOM doesn't do anything.

There's closer cooperation, not competition. And competencies are actually reinforced as each main command is obviously specializing. I don't understand why the Navy flies airplanes, for instance. Or why the Marines even exist in 2011.

[Tupac Shakur]

Why have multiple forces to engage on land in separate services? Ditto for the air?

You're preaching to the choir.

I don't understand why the Navy flies airplanes, for instance. Or why the Marines even exist in 2011.

Well, I understand why the Navy flies ship-based planes (or planes designed for maritime missions). What I don't understand is why the Army doesn't fly planes for land-focused missions, or why the Marines have planes at all.

[Hauldren Collider]

Duh.

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

Marines are hardly cannon fodder. Marines are actually the better-trained and more elite force.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, I understand why the Navy flies ship-based planes (or planes designed for maritime missions). What I don't understand is why the Army doesn't fly planes for land-focused missions, or why the Marines have planes at all.

Yes, the separation of branches does seem rather silly. It's all rooted in tradition, which is something militaries across the world are distinctly fond of.

[Asher]

Marines are hardly cannon fodder. Marines are actually the better-trained and more elite force.

Who cares, none of that is inherent in being "marines".

Why don't you just train your Army guys better?

[Dinner]

FFL.

[Al B. Sure!]

This isn't new, Asher. There's been rumblings about getting rid of the Marine Corps for decades, most notably following the Second World War. Both Truman (a former Army officer) and Eisenhower wanted to merge the Corps with the Army.

From the Truman library, you can check an interview with then Assistant Secretary of Defense Wilfred McNeil. It talks about this but also gives some insight to the organization of the US military following the Second World War and the way competing priorities and budget concerns shaped the US military into the force and organization it is today:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/mcneilwj.htm

Some relevant bits:

MCNEIL: My impression was he really believed in it. It may have been more than a coincidence that he pressed for it, and it was just an election year. But I think I could illustrate why I think he really believed it, in addition to it being a convenient time. We were having a very difficult time trying to get the unification to work. There were some bitter words between the naval aviation arm and the Air Force. Army wanted to get rid of the Marines and the Marines felt it very keenly.

HESS: The Army wanted to take over the Marines?

MCNEIL: Oh, sure. Sure, they wanted to eliminate them except for guard duty.

MCNEIL: They were all staking out claims, you know, and so you had the makings of a good lawsuit every hour of the day and night. One of the problems, of course, was between Admiral [Arthur W.] Radford and Tooey Spaatz. They were told to stay up one night, and they did stay up until 3:30 or 4 in the morning, trying to get a paragraph on naval aviation and the Air Force. I wrote the paragraph, I remember, on the Marine Corps -- that the Marine Corps for planning purposes would be limited to four divisions. That created quite a stir for about forty-eight hours. Finally [Omar] Bradley and all agreed to it, including the Vice Chief, and Tooey Spaatz, and Larry [Lauris] Norstad, Louis Denfeld, Admiral Radford, and Gruenther.

MCNEIL: Yet he [Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson] was frustrated on two or three of his efforts. For example, he was going to cut out the Marine Corps and the Marine Air Corps, right quickly. He came to New York to make a luncheon speech. I got several calls by the time the luncheon speech was over saying what he was going to do. When he came back at 5 o'clock I took in to him a complete analysis of what a Marine squadron cost, even allocating the cost of the Judge Advocate General Office of the Navy to Marine Air. He said, "Well, this is unbelievable.'

I said, "Well listen, I understand this is what you took into an informal off-the-record meeting you had in New York this noon. I’m sorry the word gets around awfully fast. When I got the word from New York about what you were saying I thought you'd like to know because you're going to hear from them." Carl Vinson paid a call on him the next morning at 8:15. Johnson said, "Mr. Chairman, I have no thought of cancelling Marine Air." So he started out with kind of the meat axe and his mind made up. But after a few months he started to look at both sides, and to study things just the least bit. And I thought he did a fair job. In the last two or three months I would say he did a good job as Secretary. Louis Johnson was very bright.

MCNEIL: The Bureau of the Budget was anti-Navy.

HESS: Anti-Navy? Why was the Bureau of the Budget anti-Navy?

MCNEIL: Well, they would just as soon have seen the Marine Corps become part of the Army. They didn't believe in carriers. Naval aviation was a drain on the public purse, and its job could be done by the Air Force. That's in spite of the fact that there were three or four former Navy people on the staff. I think the Navy was rated the most modern in their demands, but Truman, of course, was anti-Navy himself.

HESS: He had been an Army officer.

MCNEIL: Yes. That influenced him, but I will say he got over it pretty well.

HESS: More than anti-Navy, he was just pro-Army, perhaps, is that right?

MCNEIL: I think that's a better way to put it, yes. Well, for example, when he said, "We'll make the Marines a police force."

HESS: I think the statement was that the Marines were the Navy's police force, something like that.

MCNEIL: I believe it was stronger -- a little stronger than that.

HESS: He got in a little hot water on that didn't he?

MCNEIL: Listen, when you say that to a Marine, you've got a fight on your hands.

MCNEIL: I think he was carrying out orders and directions from the White House which was influenced by the Bureau of the Budget. There's a lot of reasons for that. On the side the Bureau of the Budget's staff would tell me things. For example, the Bureau of the Budget staff was on a campaign to get the Marine Corps limited to seventy-four thousand; I remember the figure quite clearly. I don't think it ever got below a hundred thousand, probably, but that was the effort

All this was discussed thoroughly in the late 40's and after but the Corps is still here.