Thoughts?
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/11/12/new-dod-adviser-has-made-controversial-proposal-get-rid-of-marine-corps.html

The Department of Navy had contemplated disbanding the Marine Corps in the 1930s. The Marine Corps countered it would conduct amphibious operations. The Navy agreed. I firmly believe the Marine Corps amphibious operations capacity became a Revolution In Military Affairs (a military advantage) in WWII as we used the Marines for island hopping to make the noose around Japan tighter. I firmly believe we still need the Marines for their amphibious operations capabilities. The Marine Corps is also coincidently focusing more on amphibious operations as they streamline the Marine Corps to prepare for that endeavor.

China is expanding her footprint by military means, belt and road initiatives, and purchase of long term port leases around the world. Even Australia leased Port Darwin to China.

30 years ago, Doug McGregor wrote an interesting and innovative book called "Breaking the Phalanx".

He was a toxic leader in the Army, which is why he rose no higher than he did, and his single successful book has given him an elevated platform to amplify a lot of jackassery since.

He isn't wrong that a USMC the size and scale of what exists today results in a lot of redundancy with the other services, but that is just baying at the moon. Especially in the last 60 days of a lame duck admin.

I Am A Critic said:

---

Without the Marines, who will the Army look up to?

---

There may be a time the Marines wished they had M1s and more FA.

Yeah, we've heard this before. I think SecDef Gates was the last one that championed this. Essentially the idea of conducting a contested beach landing with modern anti-ship missiles is a difficult one to imagine.

It really depends on what types of wars we think we're going to fight. When it comes to taking on a peer/near peer adversary, a beach landing just isn't going to happen until the Navy and Air Force have substantially softened up the coast line.

But, we have plenty of non-peer adversaries that still probably shake a bit when they see an amphibious ready group floating off their coast. And the MAGTF, while small, is probably the most fully capable fighting force that doesn't rely on another service (except for the Navy to get a ride and provide health services). The Army lacks fixed wing air support, the Marines have fixed and rotary. The Air Force and Navy both lack ground forces.

If you fold the Marines into the other services, if we ever needed a dedicated marine force in the future, rebuilding that amphibious/expeditionary knowledge and skillset will be difficult.

He has a job for another 2 months then he will be an unemployed senior advisor to a former acting Sec Def, so what he says or thinks really has little impact.

That being said, his point isn't a new one nor does it hold water for very long. The Marine Corps flexed into a large ground force because that's what the US needed it do to over the last 20 years. I do agree that the Marine Corps current make up as another light infantry division doesn't make sense going forward, but the shift away from that back into something that is more flexible and able to project force from the sea onto land is already in place.

The Navy will always need the ability to project force ashore and secure a location even if only for a short time or to allow follow on forces. The Marine Corps will look different from what it did in WW2 and for the last 20 years but it won't go away, nor should it.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Yeah, we've heard this before. I think SecDef Gates was the last one that championed this. Essentially the idea of conducting a contested beach landing with modern anti-ship missiles is a difficult one to imagine.

It really depends on what types of wars we think we're going to fight. When it comes to taking on a peer/near peer adversary, a beach landing just isn't going to happen until the Navy and Air Force have substantially softened up the coast line.

But, we have plenty of non-peer adversaries that still probably shake a bit when they see an amphibious ready group floating off their coast. And the MAGTF, while small, is probably the most fully capable fighting force that doesn't rely on another service (except for the Navy to get a ride and provide health services). The Army lacks fixed wing air support, the Marines have fixed and rotary. The Air Force and Navy both lack ground forces.

If you fold the Marines into the other services, if we ever needed a dedicated marine force in the future, rebuilding that amphibious/expeditionary knowledge and skillset will be difficult.

---

I don't know China's footprint, but I do know they have purchased long term leases around the world, and I would assume much of it will be in the Pacific region. Many of their imperialistic goals will be met with the help of their belt and road policy. The Japanese occupied many islands in WWII and we used amphibious landings to retake the islands. We were fortunate that our navy decimated the Japanese navy and the Japanese held islands often became unsupportable.

Area Denial in the Pacific will be a huge part of our defense posture for decades to come. The marines are ideally suited for this and perhaps for operations in Africa.

Everything else - the Army.