Do We Really Need the Marine Corps Part II

My continued rant against one sailor's mistaken belief.

In this episode, I will continue my point by point attack against the wrongheadedness of the article written by a retired Navy Commander.

In the next part of the article written by Commander Denny, he makes a telling statement. “The nation wants the Marines. The question may be how to keep the aspects the nation wants, while eliminating the Marines as a separate branch and reaping the benefits of a simplified chain of command, smaller overall force, and another base realignment and closure evolution.” This statement tells you everything you need to know about the reasons for his article; money. This isn’t really about a duplication of effort, it is really about cutting more money from an already shrinking defense budget and cutting personal from a military that is already too small. The Marine Corps is allotted a miniscule 7% of the defense budget. The Army gets 32%, the Air Force 22% and the Navy gets 23%. I think America gets pretty good value for the money spent on the Marines and there are plenty of other areas of waste that could be addressed before we start talking about eliminating an entire branch of the military.

The Marines have 13 bases of all sizes around the world, from the extremely large, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) in Twentynine Palms California (932 square miles) to the tiny, Marine Barracks Washington D.C. (six acres). I would actually be ok with closing Air Station Yuma (Arizona), Air Station Miramar (California) and Logistics Base Barstow (California) and moving everything to MCAGCC. That was the base I spent most of my state-side time in. I know there is plenty of room to move those other operations there and still have lots of empty space for war games. That would close three large bases in the US and save a boatload of money. If base closures are really what you’re after look at the Air Force, they have 59 bases just in the United States.

Commander Denny thinks the American public only cares about what he calls “Mud Marines”,

the ground fighting element of the Marine Corps, rather than the entire Marine Corps, including the Air Wing.

I don't think that's true. The Marines have had a award winning advertising campaign since the early 1980’s and it has always done a great job of showing all the different aspects of the Marines. The American public has a different type of relationship with the Marines than it does with any of the other branches and I believe that most people are going to object to any aspect of the Marines being rolled into one of the other services.

Denny says that the Marines, stripped of their air element (which I’ve already shown is a pointless exercise) “would resemble the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps, both in size (approximately 88,000 troops) and capabilities He also suggests that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (currently a 4-star general and one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) be demoted to a 3-star general, which would put him at the same level as the XVIII Corps commander but also eliminate a voice in a body that directly advises the President. This would be the first time since 1947 that a Marine wasn’t a Joint Chief. He states that both his revamped Marine Corps and the XVIII Airborne Corps are light infantry, air-mobile, and both are capable of airborne and amphibious operations. Again he doesn’t show a basic understanding of Marine Corps organization and training. While it is true that Marines are air-mobile, there are only about 2% of Marines that are qualified as paratroopers. Marine Reconnaissance Battalions, Force Reconnaissance (our special ops guys) and Air/Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies (ANGLICO) along with a regular Marine here or there are the only ones jump qualified. This is in stark contrast to the XVIII Airborne Corps which has 41% of it’s soldiers jump qualified. However, 100% of Marines are capable of an amphibious landing but the some of the units in the XVIII Airborne Corps have never made an amphibious landing and the majority haven’t done it since the early 1960’s.

Commander Denny believes that the Marine Corps should become the Army’s XIX Marine Amphibious Corps and be stationed at Camp Pendleton in California he says that would give the U.S. “a light infantry center of excellence on each coast.” He apparently doesn’t realize why the the Marines have one division on the west coast (the 1st Marine Division) and one on the east coast (the 2nd Marine Division). The reason for this is simple, each division is responsible for different areas. Unless it is some major combat situation (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) the 2nd Marine Division takes care of any missions in Europe, the north and west coasts of Africa and the Mediterranean Sea area. The 1st Marine Division has the Pacific rim and the rest of Africa. Since we have already established that the XVIII Airborne Corps does not have the training or experience to conduct an amphibious landing and also doesn’t have the correct types of helicopters to operate off of Navy ships it would be nessasary for one of the Marine divisions from California to fly to the east coast and be embarked on ships to respond to the mission area. That seems like a waste of both time and money and in many Marine missions time costs lives.

Commander Denny also suggests that the Marines could have autonomy in uniforms and such. He says that because the Army has six different hats for different billets, that the Marine Corp could maintain their dress blues (the most iconic uniform in the military)

as well as our emblem the Eagle Globe and Anchor. He says that we could have separate recruiters and people would be enlisting in the Amphibious Corps. We could keep one of our two boot camp locations (MCRD San Diego and MCRD Paris Island) and even keep calling our E-7's (a rank called Gunnery Sargent) “Gunny”.

First I’d like to say Gee, thanks, it’s really nice of you to let us keep our stuff. Secondly, he does not understand how much tradition is valued in the Marine Corps. In boot camp recruits attend an eight week class on the history and traditions of the Marine Corps. For example, the red stripe on the trousers of the NCO’s (Non-Commissioned Officers, Corporals and above) in the picture above is called the Blood Stripe, it represents the 80% casualties among the NCO’s in the Battle of Chapultepec during the Mexican-American War. The battle also provides the beginning of the Marine’s Hymn “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli”. The Eagle, Globe and Anchor (EGA) is an important symbol of the Marines. When you are in boot camp you are NEVER allowed to refer to yourself as a Marine and the Drill Instructors will not call you one because you have yet to earn it. The week before graduation, at the end of a two day test of metal and physical endurance called The Crucible there (in San Diego after hiking up the steep mountain called the “Widowmaker” it is also known as less wholesome names I will not print here) is a ceremony where the Drill Instructors congratulate all the recruits, calling them Marines for the first time and giving them their first set of EGAs and the Marines get to sing the Marines’ Hymn all the way to the end. There is nothing like that in any of the other branches.

If you ask the average solider, sailor or airman what is the birthday of their service, the majority will not know or care. If you ask a Marine the same question he/she will proudly tell you that it is November 10th 1775 and will add that the first two battalions were raised by Captain Samuel Nichol at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia. That date is celebrated by Marines around the world every year. There will be many Marine Corps Birthday Balls, with Marines dressed in the Blues celebrating our beloved Corps. The main feature of these parties are the birthday cakes.

There is a ceremony that goes along with them as well. When it is time to cut the cake the oldest Marine present and the youngest Marine present cut the cake symbolizing the past and the future of the Marine Corps. When I was in boot camp the only time we got desert with dinner (or any other meal for that matter) was on the Marine Corps Birthday. On November 10th 1990 cakes were made on the Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and flown in to the Marines in Saudi Arabia preparing for Operation Desert Storm. Cake on the birthday is a BIG DEAL.

Commander Denny stated that incorporating the Marine Corps into the Army would significantly simplify the DoD chain of command and as he puts it “eliminate the need for the Commandant (of the Marine Corps) to go to the Army and beg for future armor and artillery support.” Is the chain of command really simplified by getting rid of a few Marine generals to be inevitably replaced by Army generals.

As for the begging he expects the Marines to do, he obviously has not listened to the what the Commandant has said the future of the Marine Corps will look like. The Marine Corps of the future is returning to the role we played in the past. Attack from the sea, secure a beach head and any close by high value targets, then get the heck out of there and let the Army mop up. Yes, the Marines are getting rid of all our tanks and most of our artillery but not all of it. If the Marines are going to return to their expeditionary past, there is no real need for large caliber artillery.

The 105mm howitzers that the Marines used in World War II are more than capable of fulfilling the “kick down the door” mission we are returning to. Neither is there a real need for the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV-25), if the Marines aren’t planning to stay in any one area for too long there is no real need for a scout vehicle/infantry fighting vehicle. Especially with drones and satellites available.

Plus the Marines will not be toothless as they are planning to add long range rocket artillery to their inventory. Traditionally we have always relied on shipborne naval artillery to add a heavier punch to our attacks. To me that is the area of biggest concern, the lack of Navy vessels that could assume the fire support role in the future.

The USS Iowa

The battleships are all gone as are the heavy cruisers and even the destroyers that used to get right up to the beach to blast away at whatever target the Marines had for them aren’t what they used to be. Currently there are no naval guns bigger than five inches and it would take four modern ships of any type to equal the firepower of one WWII destroyer. That is not even close enough to fulfill the needs of a Marine unit forcing a landing on an enemy beach.

I was unable to find anything on any plans for the Navy to increase it’s naval gunfire capabilities. Maybe Commander Denny should write an article on that!

I think I have done a good job of refuting Commander Denny’s article and shown that at the least it is tactically unsound as well as being petty and financially negligible to disband the Marine Corps. I hope you have enjoyed this post and maybe even learned a few things. If you have any questions or comments, wish to subscribe to this learned publication, or want to share this post with your favorite Marine, please click the buttons below.