And a merry Semper Fidelis to you, too.

Water Cooler
#21

That would depend. Many militaries also feature commando units that proportionatly number closer to the marines and basically consist of the upper tier shock troops. It’s a very similar structure.

This has not been the experience within the military structure in practice. Sharing sounds nice until these conflicts are raised. In those events, the military has seen fit to designate assets with differentiated priorities and command chains to avoid breakdowns. I think you believe the Marine air wing is large enough to single handedly conduct an offensive and thus make it redundant. It is not. However, it is large enough that given a created conflict as such, Marines would have sufficient air support in an emergency and the fleet would have sufficient air cover as well. In addition, this allows the marines to move some planes off ship with them. Basically this allows streamlined intelligence and command and very little redundancy because it shares support units at a favorable marginal cost. Think of it as taking a general asset of a fleet of aircraft and dividing priorities by putting them under different units. Some have 1) Fleet defence 2) supporting land operations while others have 1) Supporting Marine operations 2) Fleet defense and the units are split up based upon expected needs in a conflict. While support is shared, you may ask what’s the point. By speaking with marine officers I’ve known, and reading things like their Warfighting Manual, they outline pretty clearly that the marine mandate is to be able to conduct maneuver warefare (the army does not share this capablility and instead focuses on attrition warefare), as required in most invasions. Due to the speed and flexibility required in these offensive operations, it makes a lot of sense to streamline command and have things centralized under the Marines. I’ve heard repeatedly that you can not underestimate the amount of speed that is lost through decentralized chains of command. Beneath a certain scale, a centralized command makes sense (why we have the marines) and on the larger European theater style conflicts, segregation as seen in the army and air force begins to make sense. That is the other reason for unit segregation. I have a feeling the Pentagon has a reasonable amount of expertise here, and they seem to share the same view.

At the end of the day, warefare generally falls under maneuver warfare and attrition warfare. In the past decades, there’s been a rise in prominance and effectiveness of maneuver warfare, while in the future they may be a need to return to an attrition style of fighting. The army and the rest of the military is designed for the latter while the marines are designed for the former through structure, training, philosophy and equipment. I don’t think the need to be able to wage both manners of warfare given the variety of conflicts we get involved with should be underplayed. This is again a distinction that most people don’t seem to be aware of.

#22

I think you’re both right. These two statements aren’t mutually exclusive. (The “bloated and redundant” is an opinion, one that I would agree with.)

Yes–in theory, the Marines were originally designed with amphibious assault in mind, and it made sense for them to do 63 of them in WW2, as opposed to the Army’s one (which garners all the attention). And again, in theory, the Marines are meant to be a more “quick” and “striking” force, while the Army is more like a big, rumbling machine. (Think–Marines=Lawrence Taylor, and Army=Vince Wilfork.)

However, in today’s world, I’m not really sure that there’s much need for amphibious assault. And I’m not sure that there ever will be again. And in reality, the Marines and Army do virtually the same job when forward deployed. In fact, it’s not uncommon to have Marines, Army, and even the Air Force slogging it out on the ground. I know plenty of Air Force people who have seen more combat action than a lot Marine or Army folk.

I think the Marine Corps would oppose any efforts to divorce itself from the Navy, especially if it meant joining the Army. The Army and Marines mix like oil and water.

#23

What you’re saying is true when analyzed from a purely theoretical or academic point of view. The Marine officers are taught maneuver warfare, and are taught about the “speed and flexibility requirements.” This is in keeping with their tradition as an expeditionary force, or an “invading” force. The Army, on the other hand, is taught to be an “occupying” force, which requires less tactical maneuvering and less warfighting skills, but with a heavy emphasis on logistics.

While that is true in theory, in practice–the Army and Marines (and to some degree, the Air Force) are all occupying the same camps in the Middle East at the same time doing the same thing with the same gear reporting to the same commanding officers.

And I think you got your centralized and decentralized mixed up. The Marines are more decentralized (in theory) and therefore quicker (in theory).

#24

Well, their command structure is decentralized, but I meant centralized in that their air wing and armor are all under the same roof.

#25

Serving in the US armed forces has to be one of the best experiences ever. I’ve mentioned this before. One of the most valuable learning experiences in business school was to be friends with an Army officer who was a top of the class West Point graduate that then served in a very impressive role in Irak during his mid/late 20s. What I’ve always liked about him is his understanding that he was serving to a greater cause than himself, probably the greatest cause during his lifetime, and that his job was a reflection of the very definition of the principles and history of the United States. Our class had plenty of McKinseys / BCGs / GS / Fortune 100 people that, like it has been established before, would unplug their grandma’s dialysis machine for a NPV of +$1. I think many people in our class would have switched places with this guy to have that genuine sense of purpose in their life other than “making it”. He was never cocky or full of himself. On the contrary, he was genuinely humble about the opportunity to serve his country and be part of that continuum that started 200+ years ago and still will be there long after he’s gone. Most notably his ethics were so clear, transparent, that at first we the “business” guys would wonder if he would function well in the corporate world, but then he explained how his decision-making process worked and the consequences of BS in the responsibilities he’d had. After a while it was clear that his ethics would actually work wonders in the corporate world too, and that many C-level guys would love to hire him. He came back to the Army after his MBA. Actually he never left it; we was “deployable” as he’d say. West Point asked our school if he could have a role in its admissions committee because he would be part of the West Point’s admissions committee after graduation, so it would be a good training. The school said yes. If I were a US citizen I would love to have the same genuine sense of a greater cause than myself as my friend has, and probably would have pursued a career in the military. Unfortunately I’m just a dog who only cares about his two children, money, and wife. In that order.

#26

Yes, that’s interesting. There is a kind of comradarie that exists between the Marine Corps and the Navy that is definitely not there between the Marines and the Army.

It is interesting to look at how armed forces evolved for different purposes, but then technologies change and everyone needs some of their own (e.g. Airplanes). In addition, once organizations are formed, the politics o procurement often results in developing capacities that take on a life of their own and can’t be explained solely by the original intent of the service.

Edit: Looks like there were a bunch of other posts made while I was typing this in on my phone…

#27

IEV, Respect.

#28

IEV, I have several comments to make about your post. Granted, I wasn’t there and I don’t know the situation, but I think you have a fairy tale view of the military.

2 things about this–first, don’t believe all you hear. Just because he says, “I went to West Point and graduated as Valedictorian” doesn’t mean it’s true. There are a lot of military people who are prone to embellish their resumes and stories, mainly because they know that nobody at B-School will know them, and will never prove them wrong.

Second–the “greater cause, the greatest of his lifetime, etc.” sounds like a bunch of BS. It sounds like he was brainwashed (which the military is very good at) and even if true, it sounds like more demagoguery and rhetoric than anything with substance.

Don’t be fooled. This guy may have been one of a kind, but in my experience, most senior enlisted and officers will just as easily throw somebody under the bus as a regular civilian. It has been said that an officer may sacrifice his life, but not his career. And they will most certainly sacrifice your career if it means saving theirs. So no, officers aren’t as noble as you might think.

First, being in the military is not all you might think it is. It’s less “Patton” meets “Saving Private Ryan”, and more like “Office Space” meets “Groundhog Day”.

Whether he was genuine, brainwashed, or blowing smoke is a mystery to me. Facts being what they are–he went back to the Army. Seems like the “business” guys were right. And it seems like his ethics wouldn’t work in the corporate world–he never went there.

Of course the school said yes. Unless you’re the best of the best of the best, any school would be foolish to turn down such a request from West Point. West Point is arguably the greatest school in the entire world. The only schools that have any business turning down a request like that are the schools that Iteracom would apply to. But this is still not a commercial for an “outstanding” officer. If he was truly a great officer, he wouldn’t have been placed in a staff position at a school right after a two year “vacation” in a school. They would have transferred him to a command post somewhere, where he would have been a Commanding Officer. Something about this smells.

I am a US citizen. I had that same “genuine sense of a greater cause than myself.” I had a career in the military. And I’m better off caring for my two children, money, and wife. (Maybe not in that order, though.) There’s nothing wrong with being concerned with your own self-interests. Let me tell you, my friend–you may think that you’re part of a “greater cause” in the military. But to the military, you are a number. An expendable number that can be replaced–especially if you don’t “fall into line” with the rest of the drones.

#29

Maybe it’s the military people that apply themsevles to B School. I worked closely with an Army guy who resonated well with the picture IEV painted.

#30

I always see young military guys on the subway that do things I rarely do. i.e. give up their seats for any and all women (including whales/grenades/blacks/mexicans/muslims)

#31

^not asians? dafuk

#32

I think that has less to do with the military and more to do with upbringing. If you’re from New York, then you are probably not brought up to offer your seat to women, just like you probably don’t generally open doors for women either. However, that’s more common in the midwest and south, which is where the majority of military people grow up.

#33

True story (except “the other day” was a more like a few months ago):

I was looking at a woman on the subway the other day, wondering if she was old enough that I should give my seat to her.

Then the guy next to me gets up, and motions for her to sit down. Great, now I look like the greedy douchebag.

She initially hesitates, then takes the seat.

She turns to me and says: “You know, I’m not sure it’s a compliment to be offered a seat at my age.”

I tell her: “Well, if it helps, I wouldn’t have given you mine.”

She laughed.

#34

Just to set the record straight, he never said “a greater cause”, “200+ year continuum” or “the greatest in his lifetime”—that was my interpretation. He never used a colorful expression to describe his job or his achievements. He also never played the “what have you done for your country” card with anyone as far as know. He was willing to share his stories because a significant part of the learning process in business school is an intense exchange of ideas and past experiences.

Yeah, I mean, he could have made up all those stories in Irak and was just laughing hard, although I find it hard to believe since now it’s not that difficult to find what a high profile person does. He certainly did go to West Point (I can’t confirm if he was top of his class) and now still serves as an Army officer of higher rank. My understanding is that his role in the West Point’s admissions committee was occasional, but again, I have no idea how it works.

And yes, this school would certainly be approved by iteracom.

#35

I nearly went to West Point. My grandfather was a Major in WWII, I had good grades and SAT scores and the requisite recommendations and athletic background. But, that wouldn’t have really been for me. I sometimes think of what might have been…I mean, from the outside it is a pretty honorable life that is glamorized in popular media. I know a person who works for one of the major schools (Navy or West Point) quite well. He spends his time building new types of unmanned craft. When you think about it, although his sacrifice may be less than the average grunt (he is never in mortal danger), his contibution is almost certainly more.

There is also the little fact that you will likely need to kill for a cause you do not believe in, since you cannot accurately predict who will be President during your service. At the times when I was making making these decisions we had GWB, so…yeah.

Anybody here in CIA clandestine ops? Ha, just kidding.

#36

I have a number of friends that are convinced I am a CIA agent. I point out that they have openly suspected it for a long time, and yet they are still alive, so draw their own conclusions.

#37

The perfect cover. If you made one of them disappear, your cover would be blow because it would confirm the suspicions of the others. If you made them all disappear, there would be too many loose ends to tie up.

Note: I sent a sealed copy of this thread to my lawyer, my lawyer’s lawyer, and numerous members of the media both here and abroad with directions to open it in the event of my death, disappearence, or disability.

#38

I have a number of friends and family who served in the armed forces in the US Marines, Royal Navy, Canadian Forces and the IDF. While they agree with alot of what you said, particularly regarding the lack of personal autonomy almost all of them had alot of positive things to say about their experience. In particular the sense of being part of something greater then themselves was something they all mentioned that they really loved, my guess is if you don’t like being part of a team and being accountable to someone other then yourself the military is definitely not the right career for you.

As for me, while being an independant thinker I have always loved the feeling of being part of a team, challeging myself and others while feeling of being part of something greater then myself. I honestly think I would’ve really enjoyed the military but I found that sense of belonging somewhere else…

One thing you didn’t mention that almost all of them recounted, especially those I know who saw combat, is just how incredibly boring and inane 95% of your time on the job is, with the other 5% being extremely exciting.

#39

Let’s end sex discrimination in the draft. Age discrimination, too. It’s rude to ask ladies how old they are.