Department Of The Navy And Marine Corps

[ringjamesa]

Should the Corps be granted equal status with the Navy, Army, and the Air Force? At least one congressman thinks so;

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/01/marine_walterjones_010709w/

[fenway]

I don't think so.

they have a seat at the table (joint chiefs). I think the marine corp benefeits from being an elite, expeditionary force. If it was it's own branch or part of a navy marine corp branch it would not be elite. mayne they would just put units together

it is kinda like airborne in army, elite but part of the army

[USMC_8156]

Politicians being politicians. What's in a name.

[ringjamesa]

I don't think so.

they have a seat at the table (joint chiefs). I think the marine corp benefeits from being an elite, expeditionary force. If it was it's own branch or part of a navy marine corp branch it would not be elite. mayne they would just put units together

it is kinda like airborne in army, elite but part of the army

They are currently part of the Navy so wouldn't that mean that they are more like the Airborne than you would like to admit?

[Gunny08]

They are currently part of the Navy so wouldn't that mean that they are more like the Airborne than you would like to admit?

The Corps has not been part of the Navy since before any of us were born. The Commandant is not a subordinate of the Chief of Naval Operations. The Corps is a separate service within DOD. The Secretary of the Navy oversees both the Navy and the Marine Corps. Each reports separately. True, some support functions such as Aviation Supply and Medical are provided by the Navy for the the Corps. Command is not, except of course when operations are placed under a Naval officer, but that would apply to any branch.
All that said, I don't see where the Marine Corps needs more 'equality'. 'Equality' would mean that the Corps would be responsible for procuring and providing all support now provided by the Department of the Navy. We would have our own Aviation Supply, Medical Personnel and Chaplains. I don't see that happening. The Corps is too big as it is. I believe it's even larger than the British or Israeli armies.

[acesfilter]

Next thing you know, they'll decide to rename the Coast Guard while they're at it.

[Gunny08]

ordieike,
You might want to check a little further. NAVAIR is responsible for all Naval Aviation development and in-service support of the Navy and Marine Corps. That includes everything from leather flight jackets on up.
I know about our struggles with the other Services. I served through the unification battles of the 1940's.

[Gunny08]

The Corps does have its own budget separate from the others, but within the Department of The Navy. Having the Navy in charge of Aviation R&D, procurement and supply/support, I believe is more beneficial for the Corps. If the Corps was fully responsible for that, it would be a logistics Albatross

[Gunny_2862]

Well, the Marine Corps is stretching it's wings in R&D right now with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), if that goes successfully, we all might see a change in how we are viewed in those terms and what we do in the future.

It could be a one and done thing or it could be the first step of becoming completely independent of the DoN. Only time will tell.

[AMADEUS]

As much as many Marines would loathe to admit it your existance depends on you falling under the Department of the Navy. Since WWII the Marines mission has changed so much that there is very little separating it from the Army. That the Marines is still seen as an expeditionary force is the biggest thing that keeps politicians from trying to find a way to fold the Marines into the Army to save money. If the Marines were a separate force it would have to enlarge in money and manpower and would likely lose its "Expeditionary Force" title making it more likely that the aformentioned might possible happen.

[Combat correspondent]

Since WWII the Marines mission has changed so much that there is very little separating it from the Army. That the Marines is still seen as an expeditionary force is the biggest thing that keeps politicians from trying to find a way to fold the Marines into the Army to save money. If the Marines were a separate force it would have to enlarge in money and manpower and would likely lose its "Expeditionary Force" title making it more likely that the aformentioned might possible happen.

What?

More-or-less Army, are you kidding me?

The Marine Corps is an expeditionary force - goal is to come into country kick some @ss and take some ground, then the Army can have the distinct pleasure of holding ground -and likely failing at that and then having to call on the Marine Corps again (and Navy and Air Force) to help them hold said ground.

The Army, by nature, can move a whole division into some remote area and set up their own infrastructure and live in their own city for years and years, being supplied by Navy and Air Force supply missions.

The Navy, by nature, can live on their floating cities for years and years stopping by ports for supplies and fuel.

The Marine Corp, my friend, MUST rely on either the Navy or Army for their support systems ---- hence we are an "Expeditionary Force."

Mind you, the Air Force is the same way as they also must rely on the "Big Brother Army" for their long-term existence, also making them an "Expeditionary Force."

Just some edu-ba-cation! Thanks.

[Bruce]

It sounds like when they give a fast food restaurant worker a title like "assistant grill manager." A fancy title is cheaper than giving the guy an actual promotion with a raise in pay.

[Snoop_Frogg]

I think that with the raise in marine corps standards it prepares us to be that so called elite force. Eventually I see marines ending up becoming our own special forces group the way that the max fat we are aloud is 18 percent now, the marine appearence program, the implimentation of the cft to better train our marines, and additions of different qualifications on the rifle range, I think that eventually most of our jobs will be taken up by civilians, or we will work tighter with the navy for support. In either case with all these implimentations we seem to be setting up for something bigger in the future. The main arguement that I would like to make is why are so many jobs that we have ie. admin, logistics, nbc and other mos', being replaced by civilians...and what kind of training and standards can we look forward to in the future? What will seperate us from everyone else so that we do not get sent to another branch to sit like bastard children? And besides being expeditionary, what else would we be able to add to make us more solid, an asset to keep and not consume or dissolve?

[0151Sgt]

HOUSE COLLEAGUES JOIN JONES TO URGE SENATE SUPPORT FOR HOUSE POSITION ON RENAMING DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY


WASHINGTON, DC – In a letter this week to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner and Ranking Member Carl Levin, Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) and 21 House colleagues urged the Senate leaders to retain Section 905 of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, that would designate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps and change the title of its Secretary to Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. Rep. Jones, the author of Section 905, has long been an advocate of providing formal recognition of the Marine Corps’ status as an equal partner with the Navy.

Twelve of the letter’s 22 bipartisan co-signors, including Rep. Jones, are members of the House Armed Services Committee. They are Reps. Gene Taylor (D-MS), John Hostettler (R-IN), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Tom Cole (R-OK), Susan Davis (D-CA), John Kline (R-MN) and Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU). Other co-signors include Reps. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), James McGovern (D-MA), Vito Fossella (R-NY), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), Ron Paul (R-TX), William Delahunt (D-MA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Allyson Schwartz (D-PA).

“The Marine Corps is steeped in tradition, but historically, those traditions are in concert with the Navy. Congress previously declared that there are four branches of the military, however, there are only three departments. Section 905 would finally repair this inequity,” the letter states.

“The Department of the Navy is the nation’s ‘sea-service,’ combining the lethality of the Marine Corps’ amphibious assault force with the power of the Navy’s commanding fleet,” the letter continues. “It is often said that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; never before has the cohesion between these two been so exemplary. That level of unity is an invaluable asset to the security of our nation and that of our allies and Americans abroad.”

“We believe the time has come to identify the Department of the Navy for what it is, the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. The Marines fighting today deserve this recognition, and redesignating the service would be the most appropriate way to recognize them,” the letter concludes.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 awaits negotiations in conference committee and will be finalized this fall.

For additional information or to schedule an interview with Congressman Walter B. Jones please contact Kathleen Joyce at (202) 225-3415.

[0151Sgt]

Just want to know what every one thinks about this. I think that if it is changed it will take a way from the comraderie that we share with the Navy. Because its a known fact Marines and Sailors dispute over this all the time. I cant tell you the joy it brings me in this Joint enviroment i work in when i tell a male Sailor that Im apart of the mens Department of the Navy and the look on his face is priceless. What are everyone elses thought please.

[Battleshort]

There is already a thread.


http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1573358

[0151Sgt]

As you can see that one is under the Navy. I want to know what my fellow Marines think about the change.

[DevilNuts]

I don't mind things the way they are now.

What I would mind is implementing a new naming policy that has no real tangible affect on the Corps, but instead wasted a bunch of money printing new names on things - money that could be better spent buying stuff to make our jobs easier.

[Goldy]

I don't mind things the way they are now.

What I would mind is implementing a new naming policy that has no real tangible affect on the Corps, but instead wasted a bunch of money printing new names on things - money that could be better spent buying stuff to make our jobs easier.

^said it perfectly.^

[USMC_8156]

We're a part of the Navy. If you take that away, there is no different between us and the Army. We're getting that way anyways, at this point.

[Snoop_Frogg]

I think the main issue is that there will be no seperation between us and the Navy than. Sure we'll still be the Navy Marine Corps team...but do we really want the label as seamen, or give the title of Marine to sailors that didn't earn it like we have. And will platoons be infused with sailors and Marines? What will happen to our Commendant? Will our ranks and uniforms change? It was a good point to put out there about the budget. But think about the planning process, integration of us into the Navy. And there's such a long history for the Marine Corps, would you have to impliment Navy history with ours? I think that I would rather go to Department of the Marine Corps, nix on making more bases and whatnot, but we are always working with the other departments in regards to deployment, we can still have this Navy Marine Corps team, we would just have a seperate budget, and there would be a lot of changes that we previously couldn't make.

[Snoop_Frogg]

Ok...I definately am a retard...kick me in the face kenny...I'll remember to read before I type next time...

[Combat correspondent]

Forget that crap! The Corps has a specific job and relies on the Navy for support in expeditionary endeavors - much like the Corps and the Air Force both also rely on the Army in these endeavors.

Listen, a dude once summed up the missions of each branch as a surgery - and each was important. Here's what he said:

The Air Force is the anesthesiologist. They pump a crap load of drugs (precision bombs) into the patient (enemy), numbing or knocking out the patient. Also, they continue to pump more drugs in from time to time to keep the patient knocked out. Understand the AF's job?

The Navy and Army are nurses (though they have dual roles - you'll see later). They are there to support the anesthesiologist and surgeons in their tasks. Understand this analogy?

The Marine Corps is the surgeon. They traditionally have the shortest job but come in and make the precision cuts to remove the tumor or cancer from the body. Once the cancer is removed, they traditionally leave the operating room. Understand so far? Remember, the Air Force is still pumping drugs in the whole time and the Army and Navy are still supporting.

Lastly, you have the other role of the Army (and somewhat the Navy)---gauze. Gauze sounds like a belittling role when compared to the anesthesiologist or surgeon but it truly is not - gauze is very important. You need to pack the freshly cut wound with tons of gauze to keep infection from spreading. This is the Army's typical job to hold ground....another analogy :) The gauze, dressings and nurses (Army and Navy) should be able to keep the wound under control until it heals but sometimes, a wound is persistent.

In that case, the anesthesiologist (Air Force) and surgeon (Corps) need to come in and operate again.

After they are done, more gauze....

and so the story goes.

What do you think?

[Battleshort]

Forget that crap! The Corps has a specific job and relies on the Navy for support in expeditionary endeavors - much like the Corps and the Air Force both also rely on the Army in these endeavors.

Listen, a dude once summed up the missions of each branch as a surgery - and each was important. Here's what he said:

The Air Force is the anesthesiologist. They pump a crap load of drugs (precision bombs) into the patient (enemy), numbing or knocking out the patient. Also, they continue to pump more drugs in from time to time to keep the patient knocked out. Understand the AF's job?

The Navy and Army are nurses (though they have dual roles - you'll see later). They are there to support the anesthesiologist and surgeons in their tasks. Understand this analogy?

The Marine Corps is the surgeon. They traditionally have the shortest job but come in and make the precision cuts to remove the tumor or cancer from the body. Once the cancer is removed, they traditionally leave the operating room. Understand so far? Remember, the Air Force is still pumping drugs in the whole time and the Army and Navy are still supporting.

Lastly, you have the other role of the Army (and somewhat the Navy)---gauze. Gauze sounds like a belittling role when compared to the anesthesiologist or surgeon but it truly is not - gauze is very important. You need to pack the freshly cut wound with tons of gauze to keep infection from spreading. This is the Army's typical job to hold ground....another analogy :) The gauze, dressings and nurses (Army and Navy) should be able to keep the wound under control until it heals but sometimes, a wound is persistent.

In that case, the anesthesiologist (Air Force) and surgeon (Corps) need to come in and operate again.

After they are done, more gauze....

and so the story goes.

What do you think?

You are forgetting about the "other Air Force". When we park one or two mobile air-fields and a couple of hundred Tomahawks off the coast of some agitator and start running round the clock air ops and cruise missile strikes, it sounds like anesthesia to me.:)

Happiness is - birds away, booster separation, wings deployed, engine start, transition to cruise.