downsizing US military

[Kidlicious]

Protection from who?



Part of the Department of the Navy. Not the Navy.



Our mission statement from Title 10 of the US code includes that the Marine Corps "shall perform such other duties as the President may direct." I do not believe the other service branches have such a statement explicit in US law.

What are you going to do without the Navy? Cruise ship?

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok, why would that be a bad thing if transferring your brother is beneficial to him, and to the army?

[Ben Kenobi]

Multiple branches has always seemed silly to me. It seems to cause more issues than the benefits they claim.

Why do we even have branches. Military is military. A truly unified command would help force cooperation/integration and reduce redundancies.

Is... this not taught anymore in the United States?

I'm perplexed that this is even an issue with Americans. You don't want unification. It was done up in Canada and has since been rescinded. One size does not fit all. That's really all there is to it.

[Ben Kenobi]

They should be coming from entitlements, too. Those need to get cut a lot more than the military does, since they grow without bound. But that doesn't mean the military should get let off the hook.

Right now all the cuts are coming from the military. Zero from entitlements. The problem is even if you cut the military to zero, entitlements will still consume everything and then some, even before Obamacare greatly increased the scope of existing entitlements.

What then? Are we going to hear Guynemer moan about how the military is responsible for everything?

[notyoueither]

hardly a strawman. you said:



the clear implication being that if the US mililtary was cut, it would cause people to no longer trust the US to repay its debts or somesuch.

It's obviously more complicated than that, but I'd hazard a guess that the US military played a role in ensuring a world economic system that is very advantageous for the US economy. Nothing assures us that absent a strong liberal democracy(ies) able to protect interests and each other that other powers might not change things to their advantage.

what reasons do you have for this view?

It's been mentioned in this thread. The Soviets and pre-reform PRC weren't building workers' paradise.

[Al B. Sure!]

Has anyone told you lately that the "every Marine is a rifleman" thing is dumb? Because it is. My brother's in the Army, as a hacker type--we're not allowed, and don't want, to know the details. Something that involves hacking into/disabling computer systems. But since he has a bum shoulder that dislocates easily, he's "not deployable," so they're letting him go. Their loss, since he's going on to a very nice civilian job with the skills they taught him. But seriously, WTF? If a war breaks out, they are not going to be sending highly trained spooks onto the field with a damned rifle.

I have discussed ad nauseam previously how and why every Marine is a rifleman, the historical precedence (that continued into Iraq and Afghanistan) of non-infantry Marines being formed into provisional rifle companies, and the nature of modern counterinsurgency in which there is no 'rear'. I suggest you dig up my old posts if you truly want to learn why this is.

But to give you a specific and easy to understand example from my own MOS that has a daily occurrence in Afghanistan and in every war we will ever fight: convoys.

Marines in a hostile AO need to be resupplied. When we deliver supplies via trucks, do you think there is no risk of hostile action? Do you not think that given the nature of guerrilla warfare and insurgency used by our enemies that they don't target convoys? What do you think insurgents place IEDs to take out? What do you think they ambush? It's milennia-old warfare: if you can't fight a superior enemy directly, you go after the supply lines.

That is why convoy operations are mounted patrols. Logistics Marines man the mk19's, m240's, and M2's on the trucks. All Marines in the convoy have personal weapons. We replaced the humvees with MRAP's and armored up our MTVR trucks because convoys were getting torn up by complex ambushes (ambushes triggered by IED detonations).

Ideally, you want to return fire, suppress, and push through but if an IED takes out a vehicle in the convoy, those logistics Marines effectively become mechanized infantry securing the downed vic and evacuating casualties.

[Al B. Sure!]

If you want more information on convoys, you can google the Tactical Convoy Ops joint pub. It includes IA drills for contact and IED's.

[Guynemer]

OK, but as mentioned by someone else there will be other powers that will try to fill any void left. Who are they likely to be? I'm doubting it'll be liberal democracies.

No one has the economic strength to fill that role; if China or Russia tried to do so, they'd destroy themselves.

There is no reason we need to station forces in Germany or Japan or South Korea. By doing so, it is all too easy for the US to entangle itself in overseas misadventures; those countries are more than capable of not only defending themselves, but projecting their own strength.

[notyoueither]

Of course they won't fill the void globally overnight. Certainly they will regionally, and surrounding states will have a much harder time resisting.

What's kept Russian tanks out of Ukraine? It isn't goodwill on Putin's part.

A much pushier Russia and China would be two easily foreseeable consequences of an isolationist USA with a small military.

[Colonâ„¢]

What's kept Russian tanks out of Ukraine?

Harrods, Nice.

[Al B. Sure!]

How about the Baltic? Just this past December, the Russians deployed missiles in Kaliningrad as a political move. Latvia's Defense Minister, Artis Pabriks, told Reuters, "It creates unnecessary political tension and suspicions and reduces mutual trust because we don’t see reason why Russians would need such weapons here. I think it’s just to show who is the boss in the region.”

How about Georgia? Azerbaijan? Russia is tied into the Armenian and Azeri conflict over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region and has threatened military action against Azerbaijan.

Russia is always puffing its chest out, holding a big stick behind its back.

[Al B. Sure!]

This thread no longer matters.

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/159437/commandant-gen-james-f-amos-corps-is-going-sleeves-up.aspx

SgtMajor Barrett and I have now spoken to the majority of you about our efforts to "Reawaken the Soul of our Corps." Each time that we have talked with you, we come away with a strong belief that you "get it." You understand that our renewed focus on the four enduring principles of: DISCIPLINE; ADHERENCE TO STANDARDS; ENGAGED AND CONCERNED LEADERSHIP (24/7); and FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS, is key to resetting the Corps and getting ready for tomorrow's fight. You understand that those 4 principles define what we have called "The Soul of the Corps." They have been with us for over 238 years...it's always been that way.

As we complete the mission in Afghanistan, it's critical to understand that there will be no "peace dividend" for America's Marines...there will be no operational pause for us. The world that we will live and operate in over the next two decades will be a dangerous one; there will be plenty of work for those who wear our cloth.

As we have travelled throughout our Corps, many of you have let us know how important your identity as a Marine is to you and the Marines you lead. I can't tell you how many times we have been asked the persistent question "Commandant, are we ever going to return to SLEEVES UP?" I've thought a lot about this over the past 2 .5 years; I realize that it's important to you. Sleeves up clearly and visually sets us apart.

WE HEAR YOU MARINES!

Because of the persistence of you, my Sergeants and Corporals, this evening I am publishing a MARADMIN that will return us to SLEEVES UP status when wearing our Desert CAMMIES in non-combat areas. This will take effect on 9 March when we transition to our summer warmer weather uniforms. Get the word out Marines.

Thank you for your leadership in some very challenging times!!!

**** me. Biceps errday it is.

[Aeson]

It's good we have the largest military. We probably don't need it to be nearly as big from a pure combat-ability side of things. I could see an argument for increasing military presence and spending. (Though very unlikely to happen in the way that would win the argument.)

The military does a lot of good in relief efforts around the world, and so the "excess" isn't necessarily wasted. It definitely does improve our safety as a nation to have that function carried out, increasing good-will towards us and stability in hard-hit regions. We could probably even increase our spending in that regard and have a positive outcome (relative to other politically possible spending).

The response here to typhoon Yolanda by the US military is a good example. Filipinos generally love Americans anyways, but it's up to 11 now. To the point where a lot of Filipinos (at least in the Visayas) were openly talking about how they would prefer to be a US State. Compared to the "love you, but don't want your military based here" sentiment previously, it's a noticeable change and for very little real expense... and could have a big impact on the future military situation in SE Asia.

We certainly need to be better about what wars we get involved in though. If for example we spend the money we spent on Iraq on relief efforts (or even flat out building infrastructure) around the world we'd almost surely be in a better security situation now. Having that civil engineering/relief infrastructure part of the military makes a lot of sense since then it's dual purpose.

[onodera]

This thread no longer matters.

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/159437/commandant-gen-james-f-amos-corps-is-going-sleeves-up.aspx

**** me. Biceps errday it is.

It's good to see the Marines are just as gay as the rest of the Navy.

[Hauldren Collider]

They're actually much gayer.