Why We Need The Marine Corps
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 3 months ago
So much for reasoning the need, but there is a humanly redemptive sense in which I believe we still need the Marine Corps.
I grew up in a single-parent working-class home in a bad neighborhood. I had no prospects for college. I seemed destined for a life of industrial-strength monotony, and the Corps at the time was the only avenue to distinction open to me. The Marines shored up my flagging self-respect and self-confidence, and I’m sure it has done likewise for countless young men, and now women, who have been put down and underestimated by the authority figures in their lives. In the words of the poet, “I took the [road] less traveled by, /And that has made all the difference.”
The difference is that the Marine Corps is not just a branch of the military. The Army has its elite units; the Navy has its SEALS. But the Marine Corps is an elite fraternity (in a genderless sense) with a distinctive sense of esprit de corps.
That fraternal sense is a Marine thing. If you’ve never been a Marine, you may not understand it.
This is a heartfelt tribute to the history of the U.S. Marine Corps and what it has meant to our history, so I hate to say it to Ed, but this comes from another time, another culture, and another world.
My son saw it after Iraq when the Corps wouldn’t allow him to train his “boots” the same way he was trained. He also observed that they were intentionally attempting to rid the Corps of combat experience.
It didn’t take too long until women were invited to join Marine Corps infantry officer training at Quantico, and then on to integrated men/women training at boot camp. The U.S. Marine Corps is but a shell of what it once was.
They could have taken a different route. It would have involved making enlistments five or six years instead of four, raising entrance standards for all Marines, more specialized schools, jettisoning the ridiculous notion of large scale amphibious landings, learning to operate in stealth and with distributed operations in smaller teams, learning and applying different means of ingress and egress, and so on. In other words, many of the things the Marine Raiders do now, except on a wider scale.
It’s too late. The DoD relies too heavily on JSOC for that sort of thing, so much so that their operational tempo has caused problems. You can add to all of this the vaccine mandate, and the entire DoD has been eviscerated.
What Ed Palm remembers is now just a phantom – a ghost.
On January 10, 2022 at 1:45 am, Ohio Guy said:
Usually starting in small, unnoticed, tiny increments, the emasculation and feminism introduced to an already haughty and powerful host, slowly and horribly transforms it into something unrecognizeable. Once the transformation nears completion, it is celebrated by some, abhorred by most who remembered what honor, bravery and sacrifice truly meant.
Just another sad reminder of the darkness this nation is under. And the lack of light to change the course. As a nation, our moral compass is broken.
On January 10, 2022 at 5:20 am, Joe Blow said:
This is why you need to think of a phoenix.
What was, is no more.
What remains, needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted.
We will rebuild with the memory if what was to guide us.
On January 10, 2022 at 8:35 am, Name (required) said:
“ But the Marine Corps is an elite fraternity (in a genderless sense)…”
He completely misses his own point. When the fraternity became genderless, it stopped being a fraternity.
On January 10, 2022 at 9:56 am, Fred said:
America is in a slow motion commie revolution. The long march is coming to an end. The mass killings will start shortly if the commies follow their usual playbook. Their doing it in slow motion so you don’t riled up.
On January 10, 2022 at 9:57 am, Fred said:
*thar
On January 10, 2022 at 3:28 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
The communist Chinese and their North Korean surrogates have long memories of such things, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they have not forgotten what it was like to face the U.S. Marine Corps in battle in the Korean war 1950-1953, at places like the Pusan Perimeter, Inchon, and ‘Frozen Chosen,’ just to name a few. Which is precisely why they have gone after it so hard through their collaborators and dupes on American soil.
@ Name (Required)
Re: ““ But the Marine Corps is an elite fraternity (in a genderless sense)…”
He completely misses his own point. When the fraternity became genderless, it stopped being a fraternity.”
Beat me to the punch, and well-said. “Frater” means “brother” in Latin, therefore only men – biological males – can belong to a true fraternity.
Kingsley Browne, the author of “Coed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars,” (2007), states in his conclusion that the strength of the wolf is the pack, and that the pack (at least where the combat arms of the military are concerned) must remain male.
Contrary to the propaganda and disinformation coming out of the DOD/Pentagon and Hollywood, the hard-chargers in the nation’s combat arms units have never needed women there. America’s fighting men neither need nor want what they offer, not out there where the metal meets the meat. That includes the Marine Corps. Patriotic and traditional women who wish to do their nation a service ought to reconsider where and how best to make that contribution with that knowledge in mind.
On January 10, 2022 at 3:43 pm, Jeffersonian said:
Kipling, “The Islanders”.
No longer regretting never having served in the military.
On January 10, 2022 at 4:58 pm, Butch DuCote said:
Having served as a Marine from 1964 to 1990 and again in 2003 I think I can offer some perspective here. My mentors in Vietnam were veterans of WWII and Korea. I learned a lot from these folks. During the Vietnam era the Corps expanded from 180,000 to 365,000. In order to fill the officer ranks the best staff NCO’s were commissioned as temporary officers. To fill their ranks many were promoted who were not qualified for their position. The Marine Corps also elected to draft Marines. Most draftees became good Marines. This rapid expansion caused many problems in the Corps that took many years after the close of the conflict to sort out. When I retired in 1990 the senior offers were the platoon commanders in Vietnam. They were determined to fix the perceived leadership shortcomings of their predecessors. The Marine Corps was reshaped, retrained, and reoriented to their amphibious mission.
I was recalled in 2003 for Operation Enduring Freedom. What I found was a Marine Corps that was better trained, equipped and smarter. I also found the officer leadership to be of great quality. For once the welfare of the Marines was of great concern. That was not always the case during the Vietnam era.
I do not know when it happened but the Marine Corps General Officer Corps became “woke”. I watched it evolve over the last decade.
Before I retired in 1990 I trained many women in battle skills. I was limited in what I could train given the physical limitations of the average woman Marine. I could write a book of problems I observed and had to deal with. Needless to say I was horrified at the prospect of women in the infantry. I know times have changes since 1990 but I also know what is required in combat and that women’s physical and mental capabilities to deal with it haven’t changed. Why would any country want to sacrifice the motherhood of their future generations is beyond my thought.
I loved the Marine Corps but I must say I don’t know how much longer the Corps will exist. We have to rethink amphibious warfare in light of modern weapons. I believe it is no longer feasible in a peer to peer conflict. I know many will disagree with me; convince me otherwise.
I pray the Marine Corps will do what it did after Vietnam and organize, train, and equip for the coming conflicts to remain viable.
Butch DuCote
Master Gunnery Sergeant of Marines
On January 10, 2022 at 6:32 pm, billrla said:
A fraternity in the genderless sense? So, a gendernity?
On January 10, 2022 at 10:42 pm, Bradlley A Graham said:
Hope is not a plan or strategy and sadly the Corps is suffering from a slow death of a thousand cuts ( politics, inter-service rivalry, etc.) which it may or may not survive. In some eyes the Corps is obsolete because of the simple fact that in 2022 the mere thought of victory is obsolete.
General George C. Marshall , General Omar Bradley and General Dwight D.Eisenhower among others all had a very vocal and public loathing of the US Marine Corps.
But when you draw the ire and jealousy of President Harry S. Truman then you know your much vaunted history and sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Sadly the majority of our so-called fellow Americans couldn’t care less about the sanctity of the Corps because they have never had the desire, maturity nor selflessness to protect their country.
” Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world , but the Marines don’t have that problem ”
Ronald Reagan
Sgt. Bradley A. Graham USMC 1980-1984
On January 10, 2022 at 11:53 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Butch De Cote
Re: “Before I retired in 1990 I trained many women in battle skills. I was limited in what I could train given the physical limitations of the average woman Marine. I could write a book of problems I observed and had to deal with. Needless to say I was horrified at the prospect of women in the infantry. I know times have changes since 1990 but I also know what is required in combat and that women’s physical and mental capabilities to deal with it haven’t changed. Why would any country want to sacrifice the motherhood of their future generations is beyond my thought.”
You have made what I term the “civilizational” case or argument against women in combat. That term does not formally exist; it is of my invention as far as I can determine.
As much as the Cultural Marxists would like to change this fact, only the female of the species is capable of siring young, of birthing the on-coming generations of people who will perpetuate our society. The “hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” indeed.
In nature, men are cheap and women are expensive. Which is why men are – in reproductive terms – expendable if it helps keep the women and the young alive in order to maintain civilization.
A man’s death in battle is tragic, but it is the way of things, how it has always been since ancient times. Men fight wars and sometimes die in them. A woman’s death in battle, on the other hand, violates every sacred value our civilization once held dear. It is an abomination, an upending of the natural order of things. Especially when she needn’t have been there in the first place.
Only a morally-confused and sick society sends women into combat – in particular women of reproductive age – when there are men available to go in their place. Of course, it is a measure of just how upside down our culture has become that it is no longer even permissible in so-called “polite society” to make such an argument. That’s how far down the rabbit hole we’re gone.
As Martin Van Creveld, William Lind and others have pointed out over the years, it isn’t simply that women can’t cut it physically in places like the Corps which makes their presence detrimental. They are detrimental to unit cohesion, readiness, combat effectiveness and esprit de corps simply by their presence alone. Women, even otherwise well-qualified women, alter the chemistry of heretofore all-male units and formations in ways which serve neither men nor unit nor mission well.
If you were a Mastery Gunnery Sergeant of the Marines, part of the senior NCO corps – the backbone of the military – you know these truths as well as anyone. You also know that it was the “third rail” of your military life, something you could not discuss frankly or openly without risking your stripes, or even your very career.
There’s a lesson in that alone, correct? If women in uniform were this rousing and unqualified success, that success should sell itself to the public without all of this secrecy and threats to end the careers of people who questioned the direction being taken by the “new” armed forces from the 1980s onwards. It is much more the truth to say that the DOD/Pentagon allowed only one side of the story – the positive, highly spin-doctored side which accorded with the wishes of their bosses on the ‘Hill -and didn’t let anything uncomplimentary or unflattering about the new coed force get out into the press or the public eye.
Well, if everything was so hunky-dory with women in the Corps and in the wider military, why all of the games being played, threats being made, lies being told, why all of the ceaseless “you go girl” propaganda? That’s what I’d like to know….
I have all of the respect and reverence in the world for the Old Corps. In many ways it represented the finest America had to offer. I was never a Marine myself, but I am the son of a Navy veteran of WWII and have always had a soft spot for the USMC and USN. What’s been done to the Corps is a real disgrace, and dishonors the memory of so many fine Marines down the years.
On January 11, 2022 at 12:06 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Bradley A.Graham
Re:”General George C. Marshall , General Omar Bradley and General Dwight D.Eisenhower among others all had a very vocal and public loathing of the US Marine Corps. But when you draw the ire and jealousy of President Harry S. Truman then you know your much vaunted history and sacrifice will never be forgotten.”
Leaving aside Marshall, Bradley and Eisenhower for the moment, President Harry Truman at one time during the mammoth post-WWII draw-down of the U.S. military, asked whether the nation’s naval service still needed its own infantry, but Truman later apologized in public for making such statements and reaffirmed his commitment to the existence of the Marine Corps, after the Corps had bailed out the army during the early stages of the Korean War. Truman, a much-decorated U.S. Army Captain of Artillery who had served in WWI, was man-enough to stand up and admit to having made a misjudgment – and did so.
Marshall, Bradley and Eisenhower – you could add in Douglas MacArthur too – probably all resented the Corps for the same reason Truman once did: They were all army men and could be expected to have such an institutional bias.
Indeed, the inter-service rivalry between the Navy & Marine Corps on one hand, and the Army on the other, was one reason why the Army created their own rapid-deployment and special service forces, first Army Airborne in the form of the 82nd and 101st A/B Division paratroopers; second with the U.S. Army Rangers; finally the Joint Special Service Corps, the joint U.S.-Canadian commando unit which distinguished itself in Italy. And later, after the war, Army Special Forces and ultimately SOF-Delta.
On January 11, 2022 at 12:19 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Butch De Cote
Re: “I loved the Marine Corps but I must say I don’t know how much longer the Corps will exist. We have to rethink amphibious warfare in light of modern weapons. I believe it is no longer feasible in a peer to peer conflict. I know many will disagree with me; convince me otherwise.”
I’m just a military historian, a guy with his nose pressed against the glass on the outside looking in, if you like…. but the following questions occur to me…..
The Corps has faced existential challenges before, and overcome them. Changes in the nature of warfare. Large-scale amphibious landings, of the kind seen in WWII and Korea, are probably a thing of the past. At least in that form. That’s simply too big and too juicy of a target in today’s world.
OK, fair enough. War has changed; change the Corps along with it. My understanding of the Corps mission is not that it is “amphibious warfare” per se, but to serve as the nation’s expeditionary force in readiness. “First to Fight”… isn’t that one of the slogans of the Corps?
To me, what mattered most about the “old” Marine Corps was its way of looking at the world. The way the Corps has held fast to its traditions and ways as an institution. Its never-say-die attitude, its courage, ethos and fortitude. Improvise, adapt and overcome. Making do with less and doing more than anyone else could, and still completing the mission. Every Marine a rifleman.
Just for argument’s sake, if you were commandant of the Corps, and someone give you the clout and bucks to do it, how would you change the Corps to become more-relevant again in the present day? After you get rid of all of the woke crap, that is. What would you do?
On January 11, 2022 at 7:17 am, Bradlley A Graham said:
Georgiaboy61,
As usual your knowledge of history is impeccable and beyond reproach. Thank you.
I will always remember what a retired naval aviator told me many moons ago, ” The induction of women and homosexuals into the Navy did more damage than a dozen Pearl Harbors.”
On January 11, 2022 at 7:22 pm, JoeFour said:
For those who may be interested, here’s a link to the many postings at the Navy-Matters web site that constitute a comprehensive critique of the “modern” Marine Corps:
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/search/label/Marines
On January 23, 2022 at 4:17 pm, Jack Strandquist said:
“It is an American weakness. The success becomes the sage. Scientists counsel on civil liberty; comedians and actresses lead political rallies…” Robert Leckie, “Helmet For My Pillow”. ⚓