That is the title of the article cited below.
Personally...I believe the Commandant's logic is sound.
We have the Army to do most of the things this article woes the loss of...and an Air Force to do the rest.
The Marine Corp is a part of the Navy, and should be concentrated on Naval combat.
Let the Army handle the tanks, the artillary and the seizing of territory on land.
The Marines have a mission here that that is both vital AND soley within the purview of Naval Operation.
One that may be absolutely pivotal to victory in a potential US-China conflict.
'The Marine Corps is small, agile, and flexible, priding itself on being the first to fight, anywhere. Over the past four years, however, the current Commandant, General David H. Berger, has radically transformed the image and the mission of the Marine Corps. The primary focus now is upon developing missile units intended to sink Chinese warships. To fund those units, General Berger did away with 21% of the personnel in infantry battalions, 100% of the tanks, 67% of the cannon artillery batteries, 33% of the assault amphibious companies, nearly 30% of Marine aviation, and almost all assault breaching equipment. The desired number of large amphibious ships was reduced from 38 to 31. Due to these cuts, Marines are less capable to fight as a combined arms force. The Marine Corps cannot seize a city from an entrenched enemy, as it did Fallujah in 2004. It cannot fight on a battlefield such as Ukraine unless it queues up behind the National Guard to receive any left-over tanks and crews the U.S. Army is not employing.'
www.hoover.org
Personally...I believe the Commandant's logic is sound.
We have the Army to do most of the things this article woes the loss of...and an Air Force to do the rest.
The Marine Corp is a part of the Navy, and should be concentrated on Naval combat.
Let the Army handle the tanks, the artillary and the seizing of territory on land.
The Marines have a mission here that that is both vital AND soley within the purview of Naval Operation.
One that may be absolutely pivotal to victory in a potential US-China conflict.
'The Marine Corps is small, agile, and flexible, priding itself on being the first to fight, anywhere. Over the past four years, however, the current Commandant, General David H. Berger, has radically transformed the image and the mission of the Marine Corps. The primary focus now is upon developing missile units intended to sink Chinese warships. To fund those units, General Berger did away with 21% of the personnel in infantry battalions, 100% of the tanks, 67% of the cannon artillery batteries, 33% of the assault amphibious companies, nearly 30% of Marine aviation, and almost all assault breaching equipment. The desired number of large amphibious ships was reduced from 38 to 31. Due to these cuts, Marines are less capable to fight as a combined arms force. The Marine Corps cannot seize a city from an entrenched enemy, as it did Fallujah in 2004. It cannot fight on a battlefield such as Ukraine unless it queues up behind the National Guard to receive any left-over tanks and crews the U.S. Army is not employing.'
Marine Corps No More?
Since 1775, the iconic image of the American Marine has been that of a disciplined, tough rifleman moving forward in battle, often with fixed bayonet.
