Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

feickus t1_ixumf04 wrote

I heard this before and I have read some history on it but mostly on blogs. "Was the USMC almost disbanded and the mission absorbed by the US Army?"

2

shantipole t1_ixurvm0 wrote

Kind of.

The Marine Corps always struggles with how to justify itself as a separate force. The Army does the land fighting and the Navy does the ship fighting and where does that leave the Corps? In other militaries "marines" are just Army soldiers assigned to ships. Plus, you have the issue of it being a component of the Department of the Navy--it's not called the Department of the Navy because the Marines are top dog over there. So, there is a lot of pressure behind the idea of folding the Marines into the Army.

But, the Marines have always found a mission that they will excel at and that requires a different force composition, or mindset, or just particular brand of crazy than the Army--amphibious assault, guarding nuclear weapons on a carrier, or the first reaction force into a conflict zone. They also have done a very good job at building a very strong esprit. You can say that it makes sense from a bureaucratic perspective to do away with the Corps, but from a "winning wars" perspective they keep serving vital functions, so it's not likely they'll ever be disbanded.

5

LP-revolt t1_ixvh5si wrote

You might be thinking of the time - When the Revolution ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Marines, like the Navy, were disbanded. It wasn't until 15 years later, on July 11, 1798, that President John Adams signed into law a congressional act which created—or re-created, depending how you're counting—the United States Marine Corps. But if I remember correctly, so too the Army was disbanded, because there was no central miliary under the Articles of Confederation and only local states militias were supposed to make up the military forces until we got the Constitution in 1789 - BTW The USMC is not part of the Army, It has always been part of the US Navy - It is a Military Armed Naval force that fights on Navy Vessals (to repel enemy boarding parties) and is also used for naval invasions to occupy ports or strastigic landings for later (to arrive and occupy) other US armed forces. The most famous of this type of thing was the battle of Derma Tripoli 1805 when 8 US marines with 400-500 Arab-Greek mercenaries over threw the Tripoli Barbary Pirates. Other famous Marine events are, Halls of Montazuma (refers to the Battle of Chapultepec, during the Mexican-American War, where a force of Marines stormed Chapultepec Castle) and Iwo Jima (1945).

4

elmonoenano t1_ixwk4rk wrote

The other thing probably to mention is that the military is constantly coming up with plans for reorganization. A lot of these plans are really about attempts to take some part of the military's budget from one branch to give to another. The Army and Navy do this constantly. Probably about 1% of any of these plans ever come to any kind of fruition. The army constantly is saying the Marines are redundant and should be phased out or switched over to the Army, along with their budget. This probably happens every single year during intraservice budget planning. There is probably some plan to do away with the marines by the army, or the naval airforce (world's 2nd largest airforce after the USAF) by the USAF, or something similar every year. These plans are rarely taken seriously or get farther than an op ed in some trade journal or a working paper that's circulated.

Just googling "Should the USMC be merged into the US Army" gets 3.5 million hits. It's a discussion topic that gets endlessly debated but never goes anywhere.

3

Worsel555 t1_ixuov93 wrote

No. The Marine Corps is still a major service organized with the Navy. They have about 180,000 active service.

−1

Elmcroft1096 t1_ixwgwbd wrote

Since the formation of this nation the United States Marine Corps has had a few people throughout the history of the United States who have tried to either disband them completely or roll them and their mission into the Army. George Washington didn't want any standing fighting force after the Revolution and we can debate as to why, personally I think he saw a standing military as a threat that potentially could overthrow him. To that end he did disband the Navy, sent sailors home, transferred the officers and ships to the Army. Then he was trying to disband the Army when he was convinced that shrinking it and keeping its mission limited was a better idea which he agreed and did and also tried to disband the Marines. The Marines saved themselves by becoming the military force specifically tasked with protecting the Nation's Capital in so much that they also had to police the streets and assist fire brigades if a fire broke out, all in the name of protecting the Capital.

−3

elmonoenano t1_ixwo3a3 wrote

>George Washington didn't want any standing fighting force after the Revolution and we can debate as to why, personally I think he saw a standing military as a threat that potentially could overthrow him.

This isn't remotely true. Washington's anger at militia forces is well documented. He hated their lack of discipline, saw them as little better than a mob, and was disgusted with their cowardice.

It's not hard to find sources for this.

George Washington was not a big writer, and still managed to turn out this long letter, probably one of his longest, just about problems with militia forces. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-06-02-0305

5

KurwaStronk32 t1_ixxwg6t wrote

Washington didn’t do any of that, the Continental Congress did.

5