Will Marine Corps survive budget cuts/Army transition?

SGM Matthew Quick — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:39:35 -0500

With the combination of severe budget cuts, the Army growing increasingly more expeditionary and lethal and possibly 'encroaching' on
the Marine's territory, will
the Marine Corps survive for much longer?

Seems crazy, but seems to be a possibility.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Jan 7 at 2014 6:43 PM

CMC Robert Young — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:43:05 -0500

As long as there is an Iwo Jima monument, there will be a Marine Corps. ;-)

Response by MSG Rahsaan T. made Jan 7 at 2014 7:26 PM

MSG Rahsaan T. — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:26:07 -0500

How is the Army encroaching on the Marine's territory?

Response by Sgt Frank Martin made Jan 7 at 2014 7:55 PM

Sgt Frank Martin — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:55:21 -0500

That question should not even be asked. The Army and Marine Corps working together is too dangerous of a scenario for any country challenging ours. Would you really want the United States to be without either one? The Marine Corps has too rich of a history to just be thrown aside. Also, without Marines, the Army would have to start placing soldiers aboard Navy ships to take our places.

Response by SFC Timothy Mason made Jan 9 at 2014 6:38 AM

SFC Timothy Mason — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:38:35 -0500

There are a lot of expenses to maintaining the USMC as a separate component that could me eliminated if the capabilities were absorbed into the Army; however,
there are other considerations such as politics that are much bigger than
just budget cuts. I do not see the USMC going away – at least not in our
life-time. I do see the USMC retreating to a more traditional role of an
amphibious fight force and protecting Navy ships. While the Army has become
more of an expeditionary force, it still cannot lose its long-term massive
engagement capabilities, and it is not an amphibious force. I believe the way
that each force engages in combat changing and giving away to the future of
more robotics. We have seen this with unmanned aerial vehicles, but I believe
we will see a rise in unmanned ground vehicles in the near future.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2014 1:22 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:22:49 -0400

Budget cuts won't kill the Corps. This organization has gone through drastic changes many times before, made due with the tightest budgets, and have existed with the least amount of support for it. I always say the Marine Corps is ghetto (even when we have money) but we make due with what we have and many times do better with less through focusing on areas we have ability to improve in. When another conflict kicks off with a Corps that has less money, old gear, and less people we will stay true to our legacy and fight, endure like our forefathers did when they dealt with this situation post wartime. Look into post WWII and what the Marines did in their circumstances in Korea.

Now the Army is big and has expeditionary capabilities but what it does not have is Marines, it's concept of operations, and unique abilities. The ocean is big, the lands that border it is plenty, it is so large that utilizing the entire DoD would not even cover it all. There is room for the Army to hold seas, islands, and ocean bordered countries. Look back in WWII, you had Army presence in the Philippines and neighboring countries. The Army even helped the Marines with it's island hopping campaign and even today being the 70th year of D-Day, the Army and US allies participated in the largest amphibious assault that day.

The past and current situations did not take away from the Marine Corps nor did it show that the Army itself can do exactly what the Marine Corps does. The Air Force, Army, and Navy would have to combine itself into one organization that works seamlessly in a non-joint environment, train it's men with a different mentality and skill set, absorb our unique equipment and doctrine, to rid of the Marine Corps.

I like to look at the DoD this way, we should just get rid of the Army and Air Force and only have the Navy and Marine Corps team. We just need to absorb some aircrafts and train our Navy/Marine pilots to fly them in addition to our current fixed and rotary wing assets. The Marine Corps is Air, Land, and Sea. The Navy is Air and Sea, with it's Special Warfare Command it covers land as well. Beef up the Navy and Marine Corps team and call it a day.

Let the debate begin :D

Response by CWO3 Doug Steward made Jun 7 at 2014 1:13 PM

CWO3 Doug Steward — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 13:13:25 -0400

It's interesting how the assumption is that Marine Corps' missions would be taken over by the Army and not vice versa. The Marine Corps is already a small well organized, and disciplined air, land, sea force that has proven to do more with less.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jun 9 at 2014 10:12 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:12:21 -0400

I doubt it very highly. The Marines always have MEU (SOC)'s forward deployed to hotspots all around the world. It gives the US a massive advantage in terms of "SURPRISE! We're already here!".

Given that each MEU comes with it's own Infantry battalion ,logistical support, helo squadron, air wing, artillery, special forces, naval assets, light armor, tanks, and a partridge and a pear tree, that's not an advantage we would give up lightly, I would think.

It gives the heavier services time to complete all their recalls, pack up, and go.

Plus, the war powers act gives the President a 90 day window in which he or she can deploy troops without congressional approval. If I had that small a window to accomplish whatever task was at hand, I want the guys who are already there, and don't need to be called up and take a few days or weeks.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Aug 25 at 2014 4:47 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:47:59 -0400

Theyve been saying that for many decades. As long as there is an enemy, there will be Marines. The Army can't do nearly as much with so little like the Marines.

However, if the current administration's mentality continues, we might not have a military at all anymore. The red stripe will be replaced by yellow and fly proudly at 1600 Penn.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 10:01 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:01:10 -0400

Sounds like Army propaganda to me.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 18 at 2014 5:42 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:42:30 -0400

We've already had a very heated debate on the another similar thread. IMHO, while I believe the Army could assume the Marine mission (and there are some serious pros and cons that come with that scenario), unless DoD has to go worst case scenario and do a "Scorched Earth" type of cuts, I don't see the Corps going away. BUT if the unlikely event that it DID happen, here are three COA's that I could see happening:

1) Marines are taken out from under DoN and transferred under DoA but remain a seperate service- not likely as this would not really change the issue of them being a seperate service. This is your throwaway COA.

2) Marines are no longer a seperate service, but remain as a distinct specialty corps under the Army and moved under XVIII corps. Marine training would be additional training (like Airborne and Ranger) with an ASI or even a new seperate Combat Arms MOS. - a good balance of maintaining traditions and identity yet falling under one proponent service. Regimental lineages could even still be maintained. If I were briefing the GOs and the SecDef, this would be the COA I would recommned.

3) Marines are disbanded altogether, Marine personnel are absorbed into the Army individually and Marine missions would be assumed by Army units. - doable, but not likely as this would require significant restructuring of mTOE and MACOM.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Sep 18 at 2014 7:18 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:18:33 -0400

This is one of those fun post to read all the comments... basically all the alpha mentalities saying my C@(( is bigger than yours...

There is one fact... I don't care what you say... The word Marine holds more weight... I am Army, I love the Army, I wanted to be all that I could be by doing more before nine am than most folks do all day in my quest to be the army of one until I was Army strong...

With that said, you tell someone the Marines are going in, you are already ahead in the psychological battle. I dare anyone to think about a time when you spoke with a non-military or non-American and mentioned the Marines and they weren't struck with an "oh shyte they're bad asses".

I can already hear the Rangers, the SF, the this or that sending their hate my way... but it is true. We need the Marines if for no other reason than the "oh shyte" factor...

"Look Sharp, Be Sharp, Go Army!"

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Sep 20 at 2014 2:20 AM

SSG Pete Fleming — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:20:02 -0400

Anybody who follows me knows I have a deep respect for the Corps... and I lack the discipline to do their job... (feel free to add a caption for the photo)

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Oct 23 at 2014 3:23 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:23:28 -0400

After Vietnam, the VOLAR All Volunteer Army was having its challenges with bad press, bad civilian attitude, bad economy, incoming prior service from Vietnam combat veterans...no draft, self medication with drugs, and alcohol abuse, shell shock, now PTSD and domestic problems...a US Marine detachment was not too far away.

Holistically, the Marines stayed the same discipline since 1775 while other military services were challenged.

No other military service guards a US Embassy abroad. This traditional responsibility to duty, honor and country is reserved for only the Marine Corps.

Even if the active and/or reserve component of the Marine Corps would diminish. America's best kept secret is the Marine veteran still first to fight while keeping his honor clean. No other service has this type of conditioned behavior...says my dad...Korea Marine 51-54 1st Marines 1st Tanks, Charlie Company, WIA June 53 ... that's right...one month before the cease fire in July 1953... RIP pop.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Feb 25 at 2015 12:59 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:59:48 -0500

Not going to happen. In response to Harry Truman trying to merge the Marines into the Army, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, which laid out the composition of the Marine Corps into federal law, "...not less than three combat divisions and three aircraft wings and such land combat, aviation, and other services as necessary to support them".

Response by Sgt Jason Tanner made Feb 25 at 2015 3:04 AM

Sgt Jason Tanner — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 03:04:40 -0500

Are we going to have this argument again? This argument/proposal/initiative has been around since there has been a formal US Army.

The same arguments that were used to shoot this down before are still valid today:
1. The Army is not set up to fight the same way the Marines are.
2. The Army approach to warfare is a large set piece battle approach, where large diverse capabilities are merged at a single place to fight a battle. The Marines look at a battle from a small local fixed point of view. What I mean by this is that when the Army sets up a battle they plan out how to bring numerous diverse units to a set location and how to support them there for the duration of the battle. The Marine plan a battle around the concept that the unit set to fight the battle be self supported from within it's assets. The Marines form their deploy able units into what is called a MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) which contain all of the assets that the unit will need to carry out combat operations in a remote location without being dependent upon outside/other service fire support, supply and logistics, command and control, air defense, artillery support, air support, etc. These units being preformed prior to deloyment and trained together prior to the deployment while Army units are not formed this way and do not regularly train this way is the major difference between the two.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 4:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:17:49 -0500

The Marine Corps has a very effective PR machine that I think would keep something like this from happening. There have been serious efforts for this to happen in the past though...following WWII and before Korea being a great example. Keep in mind that a lot of the arguments in favor of Marine Corps cuts can be applied to the Army as well and that "land power" in general seems to be in the crosshairs nowadays. The Army and Marine Corps should work together instead of against each other in the fight to stay relevant.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Feb 25 at 2015 8:48 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:48:47 -0500

I read somewhere that the Army has 24 support troops for every 1 combat troop while the Marine corps ratio is 8 to 1. If this is correct, then we get much more bang for our buck with Marines. Even more so when you consider that every Marine, no matter what MOS, goes through infantry training and is a Marine Rifleman first.

Also, when it comes to ingenuity in modern warfare, history has shown the Marines to be unsurpassed. Out of the five major developments in modern warfare, The Marines invented/perfected three of them: Close air support during the Banana Wars; amphibious assault during WW2; and vertical envelopment during the Korean War.

So if budget cuts need to happen, I think there is a lot more fat to be trimmed from the Army than from the Marines.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Feb 25 at 2015 8:58 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:58:04 -0500

The way things are trending the US Army will disappear first.

As of 30 June 1939, Marine Corps strength stood at 19,432

US Army Strength 1939: 189,839

So back in 1939 the Army was 10 times the size of the Marine Corps. Today it is projected to be barely twice as large.

If I were in the Army I would wonder about it going away and not trouble myself about my betters.

Walt

Response by Cpl Robert Draper made Feb 25 at 2015 12:12 PM

Cpl Robert Draper — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:12:17 -0500

The real question should be why we don't have an integrated force. Conversely, how hard is it to imagine the Army downsizing as the mission changes? Not many will ever view the Army on the same level as that of the Corps. Not trying to be rude or disrespectful, just the way it is.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:53 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:53:33 -0500

No disrespect intended, but

YAWN!

It's always funny how this comes up in these draw-down conversations. I've observed a couple (post Vietnam, etc.)

Let's just say that there are a couple things to consider:

1. Takes pretty significant legislation to do it. I'm sure all my brother and sister Marines and all their supporters will come out in force to lobby against it, on top of the American people . . . . . . . the politicians know they'd have a whole lot of Americans wondering if they lost their minds. Too much good will out in the countryside for the U.S. Marine Corps.

2. It is a rather significant challenge to "decommission" an entire service . . .. . definitely not an overnight thing. And the costs could be staggering. Transitioning would be the same thing.

3. While the Army has some "expeditionary units" there aren't enough units or people to take up the Corp's slack. It seems there's enough work for the volume of expeditionary, special, you name it forces and I dare say, not every soldier in the Army is beating down the doors to join those units in the Army . . . . . so you'll still need crazy MFers to sign up to do it that currently sign up for the Corps.

Seems like more wishful thinking from some of my supposed Army "brothers."

Semper Fi ya'll!

Response by CSM David Heidke made Feb 25 at 2015 1:55 PM

CSM David Heidke — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:55:39 -0500

I am as proud as any Soldier out there, but the Army is NOT the Marine Corps.

Response by LCpl Randy Underwood made Mar 10 at 2015 6:25 AM

LCpl Randy Underwood — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 06:25:30 -0400

You can't replace the Marines. The Army getting stronger is just a stronger Army. It will never be the Marines. Besides, the Marines are maritime and amphibious. The Army has a long way to go if they think they can replace us.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 26 at 2015 9:10 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:10:46 -0400

Can a Marine division deploy faster than an Army division?

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:05 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:05:44 -0400

"For over 221 years our Corps has done two things for this great Nation. We make Marines, and we win battles" Gen. Charles C. Krulak, USMC (CMC); 5 May 1997.

The Marine Corps is going nowhere. This merge the two together talk has gone on for years, through many budget cuts. We are steeped within our nations lore. Our traditions are envied. No offense to our Army brothers, but this will not happen in our lifetime.

Semper Fidelis.

Response by GySgt John O'Donnell made Aug 27 at 2015 11:40 PM

GySgt John O'Donnell — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:40:54 -0400

Like LtGen Krulak said in his book "First to Fight", "America does not need a Marine Corps...we exist because She WANTS a Marine Corps..." This has held true through all the tempests of change since 1775, and will continue as long as the Red, White, and Blue is flown.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Sep 13 at 2015 10:48 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:48:07 -0400

No other service can perform how Marines do in combat.
Any attempt to do so will end up in defeat! The Army is too big and designed for occupation which is in contrast to the Marine Corps who is designed to kill and destrory or die trying.

Response by Sgt John Henry made Feb 23 at 2016 9:22 AM

Sgt John Henry — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:22:48 -0500

The Marine Corps has a budget?

Just kidding...

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Feb 24 at 2016 8:36 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:36:35 -0500

Of course they'll survive, but as an Airborne Soldier and NCO and All-American Division alumni, I don't agree that Marines have the market cornered on lethality, discipline or esprit de corps.

The 8 to 1 tail to teeth ratio is often quoted, but some of it is because the USN provides a lot of their support functions.

And as to being concerned about the Army's well-being, I'm not. The USMC is not built to fight UW.

Response by Cpl John King made Aug 17 at 2017 3:35 PM

Cpl John King — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:35:13 -0400

I can see Space Ops and Cyber getting separated from the AF. But the Marine Corps will never go away.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 22 at 2019 8:39 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:39:37 -0400

In your dreams. In 1939 the Army was 10 times the size of the Marine Corps. Now it is barely twice the size of the Marine Corps.

That trend is easy to see.

Response by SSG Jack Scott made Jan 27 at 2022 10:03 PM

SSG Jack Scott — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:03:13 -0500

Really the Marine Corps is the most capable branch of the military. We have Everything the other branch’s have combined. We are the 911 force with our own Fighters, Bombers, Helicopters, armor, infantry, logistics, and Naval support. The Marine Corps even has its own designated design of ships as in Hilo carriers for F 35‘s and attack helicopters. We will always be here!