How to Absorb the Marine Corps into the Army and Navy

[VaBeach_Eagle]

Marines, past and present, ought to find this interesting. I don't know if I'd ever considered the thought of merging the Marines into the Army and merging their aviation aspects into both the Army and the Navy. I don't envision it ever happening, but it's an interesting thought.

I believe we have some Marines as members, as an old Soldier, I wouldn't have any objections from a practical standpoint (as if it would matter if I did lol). But at the same time, I wouldn't want the Marines proud history to come to an end. If their ground forces were merged into the Army, I'd still want them to be the separate branch that they are under the Navy's umbrella. Their uniforms and traditions would have to remain intact with a merge being only an administrative one. 

Like I said, I don't ever see it happening, but it's interesting to consider and discuss. 

Marines, can you seen any potential advantages to a move like this? Disadvantages? 

Quote

How to Absorb the Marine Corps into the Army and Navy

 

 

Commander Denny is a retired reserve naval intelligence officer with service beginning in Vietnam in 1972 as an aviation electrician’s mate and retiring in 2010 as a commander. In addition to his reserve service, he was a civilian electronics engineer for the Army Missile Command and an intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), with four deployments to Iraq. After retiring from DIA, he served as a senior intelligence analyst for U.S. Central Command with one additional Iraq tour. 

The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Military.com. If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to opinions@military.com for consideration.

 

 

For decades, the U.S. Marine Corps has attempted to tweak its force structure to enhance performance within a constrained funding environment. Rather than continuing to make changes around the margins, we would be better off revisiting a debate started following World War II and prematurely truncated during the Korean War. Does the United States need a light infantry force specializing in amphibious operations as a separate service, or should the Marine Corps be resized to the small police force it was prior to World War I and the amphibious organization incorporated into the Army?

Related: Keep It Separate: Why America Wants a Marine Corps

The discussion after World War II was primarily prompted by President Harry S. Truman, along with General of the Army George C. Marshall (who later served as a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense) and General of the Army and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower. While admittedly all three were Army (President Truman was a captain in World War I and rose to colonel and regimental commander in the reserves), they were clearly knowledgeable about the U.S. defense requirements. Although the discussion ceased with Korea, the question was effectively answered in 1957 by Brigadier General Victor Krulak in a letter to then Marine Corps Commandant General Randolph Pate, "The United States does not need a Marine Corps. However, for good reasons which completely transcend cold logic, the United States wants a Marine Corps.”

 

 

Krulak was right in 1957, and what he said is even more true today. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are fully capable of performing the Marine Corps’ missions. The Army can assume the light infantry and amphibious assault responsibilities. The 1944 invasion at Normandy, the largest invasion in history, was solely an Army effort for the United States. As far as Marine Corps air, the Navy and Air Force are fully capable of close air support, while the Army can also execute the needed rotary and tilt wing missions. 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 (BRAC) evolution.

Deconstructing the Marine Corps

So, what aspects does the nation want? If the Marine Corps answers that question, the answer will probably be what it currently has, but with better funding. The informal Marine Corps propaganda apparatus, which President Truman begrudgingly complimented as second in the world only to Joseph Stalin’s, will demand the status quo. For the first time in a generation, the lack of significant numbers of former service members in Congress—coupled with national fatigue after fighting an unsuccessful, two-decade-long war—may allow this topic to be discussed seriously.

Perhaps the easiest part of the current Marine Corps to remove is aviation. There is unlikely to be a huge support community with the nation for Marine aviation, especially the fixed-wing aspects. For most Americans, their knowledge of Marine aviation is likely limited to watching Flying Leathernecks (1951) and The Great Santini (1979). Likewise, the average citizen may see no difference between Marine rotary and tilt-wing aviation and its Army equivalents. The average citizen likely sees no difference because the differences that do exist—primarily the ability to fly from ships—are minor. The nation does not need a separate Marine Corps aviation force and few in the nation likely know enough about it to want it. Eliminating Marine aviation by incorporating it into the Army and Navy would halve the size of the service, which currently is around 184,000 active-duty members.

The U.S. public is far less likely to accept the complete disappearance of the Fleet Marine Forces, the ubiquitous "Mud Marine.” Stripped of aviation, the Marine Corps would resemble the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps, both in size (approximately 88,000 troops) and capabilities—both are light infantry, both are air-mobile, and both are capable of airborne and amphibious operations. Both consider themselves to be "elite” forces with strong esprit de corps. Transition of the Fleet Marine Forces into the Army’s yet-to-be created XIX Marine Amphibious Corps would retain the needed amphibious expertise, simplify the chain of command, and could be done in a way that retains many of the unique elements that make a Marine a Marine.

Establishing the Army’s XIX Marine Amphibious Corps at Camp Pendleton on the west coast would give the nation a light infantry "center of excellence” on each coast. Reducing the Marine Corps Commandant to a three-star general, mirroring the XVIII Corps commander, would help reduce the gradual increase in rank structure seen over the past 50 years across the Department of Defense (DoD). Army traditions are likely flexible enough to retain many of the cherished Marine Corps’ accoutrement, like the dress blues and the eagle, globe and anchor emblem. The Army airborne troops currently have their maroon berets and cavalry units have their cowboy hats and spurs. Also, if the XVIII Corps can informally use the term "top” for the command first sergeant, the XIX Corps might well use "gunny” for E-7s. Likewise, young men and women could enlist to be Marines and continue to go through Parris Island for boot camp.

Incorporating the Marine Corps into the Army would significantly simplify the DoD chain of command and eliminate the need for the Commandant to go to the Army and beg for future armor and artillery support. Likewise, the Marines of the XIX Corps would have an equal chance of obtaining any new capabilities integrated into the Army, while potentially allowing Army leaders to reduce the operational tempo of both Corps, although both will still be rapid-deployment units.

To say that Marines would resist incorporation into the Army and Navy is a gross understatement. However, there are concessions that might make it slightly less toxic for the Marines and less objectionable to the public and Congress. Allowing Marine fixed-wing pilots inducted into the Navy to finish out their career using Marine Corps ranks and uniforms would likely help and given the Navy’s history of mixed uniforms, would probably go unnoticed by the public. Similar concessions for the generation of current Marines incorporated into the Army could potentially ease their transition. But regardless of how successful these mitigation efforts are, the DoD would likely be looking at a decade of angst and occasional confusion. The key will be Congress, which will have to rewrite legislation, including U.S. Title 10. As mentioned previously, there are fewer Marines in Congress today than at any time since the early 1950s (there are 15 Marine Corps veterans in the 117th Congress). This, coupled with the inevitable savings from another round of base closures, might be enough to see the initiative championed by President Truman and advocated by Generals Eisenhower and Marshall completed.

General Krulak correctly stated the United States does not need but wants the Marine Corps. For the best interests of the nation, the DoD should at least learn if the U.S. public and Congress will accept a XIX Marine Amphibious Corps. If the answer is yes, then a myriad of questions will have to be answered: Does the nation need two separate light infantry corps? Which Marine Corps installations will be closed or reduced? How many Marine Corps military and civilian personnel, made redundant by the changes, will be discharged? And what, if anything, will remain as a Navy police force? If the topic is given a fair hearing, the answers may surprise us all.

Since 1873, the U.S. Naval Institute has championed intellectual debate on key issues for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. For more go to usni.org.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/12/28/how-absorb-marine-corps-army-and-navy.html

 

[greenskeeper]

First off, thank you for your service to our country. God Bless.

I'm not military,  but I believe the Marines are a special breed and deserve to remain a seperate entity.

[Procus]

I thought the Marines were an independent branch that operates under the Navy

[VaBeach_Eagle]

1 hour ago, greenskeeper said:

First off, thank you for your service to our country. God Bless.

I'm not military,  but I believe the Marines are a special breed and deserve to remain a seperate entity.

 

1 hour ago, Procus said:

I thought the Marines were an independent branch that operates under the Navy

They're part of the Department of the Navy, so not technically a separate/independent entity. 

I can understand the logic in splitting off their aviation aspect (the fighter jets, anyway) and merging that into the Navy. So to me, the question would be their ground forces (and their helicopter/rotary aircraft aviation). Should that aspect remain as part of the Navy or should that be placed under the Army's 'umbrella'?

Like I said, I wouldn't want the Marines special and unique 'identity' to be taken away. So for me, it's more of an administrative kind of question. Which branch should be 'in charge' of the Marine Corps, the Navy or the Army? Currently, it's the Navy. 

I'd really only want to see that kind of change take place if it would give a considerable savings to the defense budget and, as I said, as long as the Marines were able to keep their unique identity intact. 

[Procus]

15 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

They're part of the Department of the Navy, so not technically a separate/independent entity. 

I can understand the logic in splitting off their aviation aspect (the fighter jets, anyway) and merging that into the Navy. So to me, the question would be their ground forces (and their helicopter/rotary aircraft aviation). Should that aspect remain as part of the Navy or should that be placed under the Army's 'umbrella'?

Like I said, I wouldn't want the Marines special and unique 'identity' to be taken away. So for me, it's more of an administrative kind of question. Which branch should be 'in charge' of the Marine Corps, the Navy or the Army? Currently, it's the Navy. 

I'd really only want to see that kind of change take place if it would give a considerable savings to the defense budget and, as I said, as long as the Marines were able to keep their unique identity intact. 

Honestly, with the current leadership in the military, the less structural changes to our armed forces right now, the better from where I'm sitting.

[iladelphxx]

I think it would be better if SOCOM was broken off into its own branch and the Marine Corps was placed under their command and was tasked with being the infantry 

[PoconoDon]

Not a great idea taking the Marines away from the Navy. I mean, those Navy guys are out to sea for long periods of time and they need somebody to dance with on those ships.

[DaEagles4Life]

10 hours ago, iladelphxx said:

I think it would be better if SOCOM was broken off into its own branch and the Marine Corps was placed under their command and was tasked with being the infantry 

They are own branch. 

[iladelphxx]

2 hours ago, DaEagles4Life said:

They are own branch. 

It's a unified command, not technically their own branch 

[Bill]

No. We need an expeditionary force that is capable of fighting banana wars and conduct expeditionary fighting around the globe. 
 

The Air Force and Navy aircraft are all designed to do several things, but the name of the game is air superiority and ground attack. Eliminating other aircraft, AAA/SAM sites, ground attack, airborne warning and control, recon, etc. The Marine Air Wing exists to do one thing: ground attack/close air support. I mean yeah, they can fight A2A engagements and have the capability, but the totality of Marine Corps operations is to support the Marines on the ground. 
 

The Marines are their own thing because we need them to be their own thing. They’re like a mini military in one for when we need people that are good in fighting in mini engagements. 
 

The thing of it is, too, is that when they’re used in larger engagements they tend to excel at that too. See: Belleau Wood, 

[Steve 17]

I understand the economic, logistic..... and the historic. 

I am not sure there's a correct answer. 

Let me rephrase..... I'm not sure there is an easy answer. 

Had quite a few friends in that branch.... I need to reach out to get their thoughts. 

[VaBeach_Eagle]

10 minutes ago, Steve 17 said:

Had quite a few friends in that branch.... I need to reach out to get their thoughts. 

I'd be interested to see what they'd think. There's a bit of a rivalry between the Army and Navy as well as the Army and Marines, of course, but if that friendly 'sibling' rivalry's set aside, I'd be curious what they'd think. Provided that the change would basically only be administrative.

The Marines proud history, traditions, uniforms and everything that they hold close to their hearts, would have to remain intact. So if you put the question to them, put it to them that way.

[Toastrel]

Hey, those Navy guys are there to give the Marines a ride! Don't knock the squids!

[DaEagles4Life]

52 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I'd be interested to see what they'd think. There's a bit of a rivalry between the Army and Navy as well as the Army and Marines, of course, but if that friendly 'sibling' rivalry's set aside, I'd be curious what they'd think. Provided that the change would basically only be administrative.

The Marines proud history, traditions, uniforms and everything that they hold close to their hearts, would have to remain intact. So if you put the question to them, put it to them that way.

I don't think it could happen because of the traditions and such.

Or maybe it's my personal agenda where I hold the Marines in high regards and Army well you know. 

[toolg]

I don't think the Marines can conduct the same missions if their forces are split between different branches of Army and Navy... I say keep them separate.

The ideas presented by Commander Denny aren't based in any particular strategy other than politics. (ie. There are less Marines in government today so let's truncate them now.) His thoughts about the Marines are ancient: Vietnam era and before. I understand military downsizing, BRAC, and issues are pertinent now. But I feel the Marines have to navigate them as much as the other branches. I don't think we should simply choose to ditch Marines off to other branches to save the Army/Navy budgets, etc.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

22 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I don't think it could happen because of the traditions and such.

Or maybe it's my personal agenda where I hold the Marines in high regards and Army well you know. 

I agree that it won't happen (I don't believe). But I also agree that it may be difficult for the Marines to be elevated to the high standards of the Army, so there is that... 

Go Army! Beat Navy (which includes the Marines)!! 

[NCTANK]

…..as a Marine Corps veteran 

HELL NO

that is all

[DaEagles4Life]

2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I agree that it won't happen (I don't believe). But I also agree that it may be difficult for the Marines to be elevated to the high standards of the Army, so there is that... 

Go Army! Beat Navy (which includes the Marines)!! 

I can't say I ever saw this in the Marines lol

 

[VaBeach_Eagle]

33 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I can't say I ever saw this in the Marines lol

 

Assuming that's a real soldier (which I do assume he is), either standards have drastically changed, or he's awaiting forced discharge due to being overweight. 

I can't speak for today, of course. But when I was in, back in the late 80's/early 90's, there were some pretty strict weight standards and I knew of at least a couple of people that were kicked out for being overweight. There was an SSG in one of my units who was overweight and awaiting discharge orders and to keep him busy, they assigned me and one of my buddies to him and for a month or so, we had to go and clean all of our communications cables which hadn't been cleaned since the last time we'd used them. 

I didn't complain, it was an easy detail. We'd go and clean one or two cables per day (about an hours worth of work) and then the SSG would get bored and tell us to get off post and not be seen until 1600 hours... he was going home. So we'd head into town and hang out, go to the mall or whatever. lol

Looking at that picture, I'll guess his age to be between 25 and 30 and his weight to be over 250 lbs. (pure guess). Let's further guess his height to be 5'10" to 6', though the picture doesn't seem to put him over 6'. But lets just say he's 6' even. His max weight at that height and age (all guesses), would be 195 to 200 lbs. 

Even if he was 6'7", his max weight at those guessed ages would be 240 to 247 lbs. 

It does happen in the Marines too, though. lol

 

Spoiler

 

[DaEagles4Life]

Standards gave dramatically decreased since you got out and since I got out in 2010. 

He could have been in the Navy but those camo when overseas lol