The Marine Corps feared being a second Army to avoid going on the budget chopping block as a redundant formation. It chose to be a second Navy. The Marine haven't even done enough to be a redundant second Navy.
So, you abandoned traditional amphibious warfare for a concept dependent on unproven weapons and international basing agreements, none of which are operational after five years. Why, general, should this organization recommend keeping the Marine Corps? Give me one good reason that the XVIII Airborne Corps could not do the job cheaper and with less overhead.
As I noted about the Marines in their self-inflicted purgatory of no longer being a combined arms combat force and not yet a mobile anti-ship force, don't sink, don't shoot, what do you do?
Two retired Marine generals are concerned about the radical changes being pushed through the Marine Corps. I believe their concerns are justified. Why wasn't the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) tapped to provide capabilities the Marines are being torn apart to provide?
I had related thoughts in Joint Force Quarterly (starting on p. 38) on the Marines as a first responder sharing the job with Army light forces late in the last century.
UPDATE: Related thoughts on gutting conventional ground combat systems and amphibious warfare ships:
Simply put, the “United States Marines are no longer capable of responding to global crises and contingencies quickly and effectively, and in some cases, at all”.
Can Marines really do a better job of sinking ships than the Navy or Air Force?
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it.
