Talk:United States Marine Corps

Marine Corps: To be or not to be? That has been questioned.

I might have missed it in this somewhat lengthy article, but is there a section that discusses the various historical (and current) efforts to do away with the Marine Corps, along with the reasons to keep it, and the decisions that allowed it to continue to exist? Like the U.S. Air Force, the Marine Corps is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, unlike the Army and Navy. Theoretically, an Act of Congress could abolish the Marines. 173.59.245.216 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is some mention in the "History" section, as well as the "Relationship with other services" section. Anything more is treading on the line of OR. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

scrolling list IDW IAW

In the heading infobox, there's a scrolling list in contravention of WP:ASL which says: "Scrolling lists, or lists of citations appearing within a scroll box, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers." This is enumerated at WP:REF, but seems to apply site-wide. Is there any discussion on this? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent Marines?

Why does the article say this? The USMC is the least independent of the armed services. Even down at platoon level they depend on the USN for basic medical services. By outsourcing their support arm to the Navy the Marines have managed to become lean mean fighting troops. They've got more teeth because somebody else is holding their tail. Hcobb (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Though corpsmen and religious personnel may be from another branch, they are organic personnel; and the reasoning behind that is not beased on support needs, but a fighting mentality regarding non-combatants on the battlefield. To say that the Corps "outsource[s] thier support arm" is a gross mischaracterization; the Corps tends to rely far less on external support than the other three branches (a generalization, of course, but a fair one I think). But in any case, the independant notion is supported by at least a couple of the refs that I have read, but can't really point you to a specific page without spending my whole holiday weekend digging through old books at the library, which I'm not inclined to do. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The USMC does not outsource their support arm. The Force Service Support Group provides the logistics requirements necessary to support MEF operations. However, you are correct that the Navy does provide significant support in the area of Navy corpsmen and chaplain support, not to mention shipping of Marines and equipment to the various theaters. You missed the fact that the Navy also provides the procurement dollars for all Marine air. All air procurement and support are considered 'blue' dollars and the Navy holds the purse strings (within limits, the Senate & House appropriations committees influence this). Jct0302 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean Marine Logistics Group? :P

Regardless, the Marine Air-Ground Task Force concept is all about independance in the tactical sense. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Women in the Marines

According to [1], only men can serve in Marine Corps combat units. Is that true? I don't see any mention in this article, but that seems pretty notable compared to the other US armed services. Can anyone clarify this and note it in the article? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Only men can serve in the combat units of any of the US armed services.71.142.240.36 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify, note in the article or provide the ref? Thank, — sligocki (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for this article. It's covered at United States armed forces#Demographic controversies; anything here would be unnecessarily redundant, especially since the Corps does not handle females in combat any differently than the other branches. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Bahamut, but I'm still a little confused, the article I mentioned: states that "only men can serve in combat units" in the Marine Corps, as far as I know women can serve in combat units in other branches of the military (say the army). Is the article over-generalizing? Does combat unit have a more restrictive meaning than a unit that will go into combat? For example, do female marines fight in the front lines? Are they restricted to non-combat positions? Is the distinction more nuanced? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The rules the Corps has are the same as the other branches. I think the current vogue term is "combat arms", which prohibits females from being in a military occupational specialty directly relating to combat, i.e. infantry, armor, artillery, special forces, as well as the units that center on them. So, for example, I used to be in an artillery unit, and even though there are lots of female supply clerks, my battalion could only have males in supply. It wasn't until you started to get to higher headquarters that you started to see female Marines. Another example is that females were just authorized to be on nuclear submarines (I think that was just a matter of facilities though, since a ship isn't really "front line" per se).

I think the confusion is stemming from the fact that recent wars don't have a front line as distinct as in the past. Now you see support units, with thier female servicemembers, rolling through the same dangerous territory as the men. For example, the infamous 507th Maintenance Company which was ambushed in the Battle of Nasiriyah. Realistically, PFC Jessica Lynch shouldn't have been anywhere near the battle, but a navigational blunder and the changing nature of maneuver warfare. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic lately; I'm sure if you read any sort of professional military journal, you'll see an essay or article about it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hi everyone, this article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be needed, cheers Tom B (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite after EFV cancelled today.

Need a rewrite with sackcloth and ashes about how the Marines reached out to embrace hi-tech in the way they'd always scoffed at the Army and Air Force doing and how the wax in their wings (or ears) melted and now they've crashed down to eat mud. (Getting quotes together.)

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/stealth-jet-delay-could-screw-marine-corps/ That unwavering obsession with high tech painted the Corps into the corner it now finds itself in, waiting around for a much-delayed, over-budget new fighter while its current jets waste away to nothing, deeply eroding the Marines’ famed self-reliance.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/MarineCorps’VehicleBuyersTurntoAutoIndustryforInspiration.aspx “We overreach on technology and as a result, we underestimate the cost and we underestimate the time to be able to do it. That’s typically how a program gets in trouble,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/business/06marine.html?partner=rss&emc=rss “The Marine Corps used to say, ‘Our weapons system is the Marine,’ and tout its affordability as a service,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group in Washington. “But they seem to have become enamored with the very high-end programs that in previous years they would have criticized the Army or the Air Force for pursuing.”

A few more? Hcobb (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like that. And when the Pentagon does cancel the EFV, lets put it on the main page news. Put the Pentagon bureaucracy's feet to the fire. Marcus Qwertyus 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When did it become part of Wikipedia's mission to put anyone's feet to the fire? I'm not saying it's not deserved; I'm just saying ... Yaush (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we part of Minitrue? Here's another.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/06/gates-tries-to-tame-marines-by-sinking-their-swimming-tank/ "During previous periods of austerity, as well as repeated threats to disband the corps, we could always fall back on the fact that the corps provided more combat power for less money than any service," says T.X. Hammes, a retired colonel now at the National Defense University. "The decades-long focus on the V-22, the EFV and the F-35B has severely undercut that ethos."

Hcobb (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To say that you are pushing a slanted POV is seriously an understatement. It's just a weapons program, no need to be raving about how the Corps "crashed and burned" or any crap like that. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia is one of our core competencies

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad79e08a5-6d79-4a85-b76f-37559e1fe368&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

• The force will be "rightsized" for the post-Afghanistan environment, which means no immediate reductions, and that it will be 2014-15.
• The USMC will support a crisis force built around two Marine Expeditionary Unit brigades and 33 ships.
• The Corps command structure will be leaned and flattened.
• The Marines will increase their cyberwarfare and special operations forces.

Work that in yet? Hcobb (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder

According to the video game Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, it says that John Adams created the Marines 1775, not Samuel Nicholas. AOCJedi (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never played the game myself, but I'm not sure that EA would have made such a mistake. Adams was never in any military at all, but the confusion may be from his political role: he served on the COntinental Congress that authorized the Continental Marines in 1775, and as president in 1798, signed the "Act for establishing and organizing a Marine Corps" that reestablished it permanently. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

More Civil War info needed.

The article could benefit greatly from some more information on the Marines in the American Civil War, at least the Union Marines should receive a comparable treatment to the Confederate Marines which have their own article. Absolutely tons of books exist on the most marginal aspects of the Civil War, so there should be more material on the Union Marines than the current five lines, even if their role was fairly minor. So if any of you Marine buffs or Civil War buffs could provide it I'd be very glad. -- 77.187.41.231 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the hatnote directing readers to History of the United States Marine Corps. The summary on this page is left intentionally brief for size constraints, but there is much more depth at that specific article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis

Just to let he editors know, there is a newer and better audio file of the march Semper Fidelis available to use. I noticed in the info box in the article, there is a "play" button to listen to the march. So you may want to consider switching the files. They are below, both the 1909 and the 1989 versions as performed by the United States Marine Band.Yoganate79 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Marine/marine-Soldier/soldier

What is the accepted practice on wiki for capitalization of marine and soldier? I can only speak as a soldier, but only in official Army correspondence do we use the capitalized Soldier. Is the Marine Corps the same way? If so, why would marine be capitalized and soldier not? Robbskey (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)