Comments on: MarDets Back in the Mix?

By: J.S. Amburn

J.S. Amburn — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:54:24 +0000

I dont care what anybody says, there should be a small contingent of Marines on Naval ships if nothing else but for tradition. Good for the Marines, good for the Navy, good for morale. I was a Plank Owner of USS Theodore Roosevelt Marine Detachment. We had an outstanding MarDet.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:14:16 +0000

I remember when someone had the "brilliant" idea to take away all of the Dwight D. Eisenhower's air assets & make it one big mobile army base for the invasion of Haiti back in the 90s(back also when they were saying that each soldier was given only 1 magazine of ammo each). Thank God they never invaded after all,but that was a waste of a Aircraft Carrier. They could have used one of the retired non-nuclear carriers for that,instead of scrapping them,making them into "artificial" reefs,or blowing holes in the sides of them with dynamite "pretending" they were hit by anti-ship missiles(USS America anybody?).After all What "scientific underpinnings" did that accomplish? It only accomplished the globalist plans to neuter our national defense.

By: SoftMan

SoftMan — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:25:34 +0000

Man you don’t even know how long I’ve waited for this since disabling my own Movable Type widget (that doesn’t work since Haloscan bypasses that code).

By: Solomon

Solomon — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:51:18 +0000

Ohwilleke–
I read your link and find it amazing how the original writings of journalist over at PNAC can have extended its tendrils so deep into the thinking of military professionals and enthusiasts. The Commandant has since Al Gray deemed it ESSENTIAL that the Marine Corps maintain it naval heritage. Thinking like that promoted on the other blogspot and over at PNAC are an attempt to recreate the Marines into something they are not. The Marine Corps should not seek to duplicate the Army at large OR become the naval equivalent of the Rangers (although in my humble opinion, the Corps outperforms both groups–relax Army guys just sorta kidding!)
Edward–
I think the same sort of thinking is behind some of the comments at strategypage. I think that realistically what you’re seeing is an “after Rummy” adjustment. The former Sec Def insisted that non Army or Marine personnel be shifted to infantry type roles in order to support the fighting in Iraq. The services (Air Force and Navy) saluted and set about the task…I might add not happily. The result was an expansion of the Master at Arms program and eventually a type of Naval Infantry that I can easily foresee going away.
We are all witnessing the after Bush realignment. The Marines want out of Iraq to protect it future funding priorities. MRAPs are killing the naval nature of the Marine Corps and limiting money that could be spent on an LAV replacement, EFV, dragonfire and other essential amphibious warfare type weapon systems (it was reported here that the Commandant has said that the Corps is losing its Expeditionary flavor). If the Corps is allowed to take over the Afghan mission, the current weapon set will be adequate and that funding slated for MRAPs can be returned to future procurement. The Navy set about this program in conjunction with the Marines because they are heading toward a smaller shipboard contingent. The Coast Guard is in agreement because they still chafe at being a part of that most dysfunctional of government agencies-Homeland Security and would dearly luv to reassert its institutional roots in the DOD. The Flag Officers of the Naval Services it would appear have finally gotten their act together.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:46:39 +0000

I recall word on StrategyPage that the Navy has already begun working on its own “infantry,” after one Navy request for a Marine security detail for a ship in the Middle East was denied due to that Marine unit being deployed on land in Iraq.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:38:54 +0000

About damn time! The Marines have been getting “less wet” since the first gulf war. This is a protective action by the Commandant to keep one of the Corps feet in the water and to prevent the type of bureaucratic confusion that has struck other services. I think its a great idea and will do nothing but ensure that the Marine Corps maintains its core competencies.

By: Camp

Camp — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:19:05 +0000

Sounds like a good solution to combating piracy at sea, and when using not-so-friendly ports.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:45:16 +0000

Link take two. If this doesn’t work, the link is http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2007/10/divide-between-marine-corps-and-navy.html

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:44:15 +0000

As I argue here, we would be better off having the Navy develop their own boarding party sailors with their own troops than trying to return to the days when that is what Marines were.
Meanwhile, the Marines ought to refocus the own identity to see themselves as a rapid reaction force first, and an amphibious assault force third or fourth or fifth, rather than the other way around.

By: Patron Vectras

Patron Vectras — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:25:49 +0000

I am very sorry for the failure of that.
The spaces were eliminated.
I will not do anything like that ever again.
Again, sorry.