Just finished reading pic related and he makes passing mention of the Marine's fear of merging with the Army;
>Our training picked up in intensity, and rumors began to fly regarding the next “blitz” (a term commonly used for a campaign). We heard that the 1st Marine Division was to be put into an army to invade the China coast or Formosa (Taiwan). Many of my buddies feared that we would lose our identity as Marines and that the Marine Corps would finally be absorbed into the U.S. Army (a fate that has caused anxiety to U.S. Marines of many generations).
Looking it up all I find are modern articles and op-eds arguing for a merging of the two for financial reasons, which I assume was the argument in 1944, but obviously that didn't happen.
So why would a merge be a bad idea? How is it justified to equip, train, and operate two separate ground forces?
One is trained as a main bulk ground force, the other as a rapid deploying amphibious expeiditionary force under the department of the Navy.
The President can deploy Marines anywhere in the world without congressional approval, just as he can fleets.
>One is trained as a main bulk ground force, the other as a rapid deploying amphibious expeiditionary force under the department of the Navy.
The problem is that modern USAF protocol makes them literally redundant. And in addition, every war since '45 (with the exception of both Iraq wars) have either been supplementary wars (Korea) or anti-guerilla warfare (every war since Korea) which renders the Marines relatively useless.
>The President can deploy Marines anywhere in the world without congressional approval
Shit should be illegal.
>USAF does everything
The Marines are the best at counter-insurgency out of the four branches, at least historically (Banana Wars, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam). You can't bomb away an insurgency.
>Shit should be illegal
They can only be deployed for 90 days, enough time to secure a small crisis or gain a foothold in enemy territory.
They preform a specific strategic function of securing an initial zone from which you can conduct operations or being a quick reaction force to a crisis. They allow an intermediate option to be exercised instead of total war. As a result, they have to be a self-contained military force unto themselves.
The problem with the Marines comes from when they are treated as and used in a situation that requires regular troops.
They are a specific tool for a specific purpose. When employed in that purpose, they do well. When employed out of that purpose, they do poorly.
They should kept as they are but their employment should be kept to their original intention. They are not occupation troops nor are they glorified military police. They are there for a specific reason.
>Source: Was an armyfag
>The President can deploy Marines anywhere in the world without congressional approval, just as he can fleets.
That was the case a long time ago. Now any part of the military can have this happen, not just Marines.
E.B. Sledge, in that particular passage, is speaking to the anxiety of Marines losing their culture. The Marine Corps is a branch with a lot of history, and they pride themselves on the particular rough-and-tumble culture that they've made for themselves. To them, the Army is the bane of their existence, a monolithic bureaucracy filled with part-timers and wannabees.
t. Greenside Doc.