The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps

[Disir]

On September 4, 2002, five months before the invasion of Iraq, this writer warned in an editorial for the Washington Post that “China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall . . . An ‘American war’ with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.”


Eighteen years later we are struggling with the bitter leavings of that unfortunate result. We have spent trillions of dollars from our national treasury on wars and frequently amateurish nation-building projects in the Middle East. We have lost thousands of good people to deaths in combat, and tens of thousands more to wounds and debilitating emotional scars that will stay with them throughout their remaining lives. Our military leaders have conducted numerous fruitless and feckless campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria that, in the end, have only further destabilized one region while decreasing American prestige and influence in another. Our larger foreign policy has degenerated from post–Cold War transitional to post-Iraq situational, without the guiding principles of a clear national doctrine. The leadership in the Department of Defense, both military and civilian, has been reduced to feeling its way from one day to the next, simply reacting to crises large and small rather than guiding the international narrative, which America’s global leadership managed to do even during the most difficult days of the Cold War.

The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps

There is no greater danger in military strategy than shaping a nation’s force structure to respond to one specific set of contingencies, giving an adversary the ability to adjust and adapt beforehand.

nationalinterest.org

That doesn't sound like a smart move.

 

[miketx]

The future I see calls for a slow death due to political correctness from diseased democrats.

 

[eagle1462010]

Massive cuts to the Marines is a very stupid move..............The Gator Navy is always on the front lines around the world..........along with the MEU units from the Marines.............

 

[Gdjjr]

without the guiding principles of a clear national doctrine.

Maybe, just maybe, Washington and Jefferson were onto something- "trade with all, ally with none" looks like like a pretty good "Doctrine" to help prevent stupid from running US into the ground.

 

[eagle1462010]

without the guiding principles of a clear national doctrine.

Maybe, just maybe, Washington and Jefferson were onto something- "trade with all, ally with none" looks like like a pretty good "Doctrine" to help prevent stupid from running US into the ground.

We smash anyone who threatens the Petro dollar.........which has been and still is our policy.

 

[sparky]

the epiphany of evolving into an American empire should not in any way shape or form disparage those who served what they thought was the American ideal

~S~

 

[DOTR]

without the guiding principles of a clear national doctrine.

Maybe, just maybe, Washington and Jefferson were onto something- "trade with all, ally with none" looks like like a pretty good "Doctrine" to help prevent stupid from running US into the ground.

We've been over this. Explain why Jefferson argued so vehemently for a Treaty of Alliance with France. LINK

Jefferson, along with Franklin, were appointed as commissioners to travel the world in 1794 and sign treaties with foreign nations. Jefferson pushed for treaties of alliance with Morocco, Algiers and several other satrapies. If they didnt agree to ally here is Jefferson opinion on landing troops on foreign shores to protect American commerce and interests and building a Navy to engage in "constanty cruising":

" Would it not be better to offer them an equal treaty. If they refuse, why not go to war with them? Spain, Portugal, Naples and Venice are now at war with them. Every part of the Mediterranean therefore would offer us friendly ports. We ought to begin a naval power, if we mean to carry on our own commerce Can we begin it on a more honourable occasion or with a weaker foe? I am of opinion Paul Jones with half a dozen frigates would totally destroy their commerce: not by attempting bombardments as the Mediterranean states do wherein they act against the whole Barbary force brought to a point, but by constant cruising and cutting them to peices by peicemeal." LINK

And while there you might read Jefferson's opinion on allowing large numbers of foreigners, even those so closely related in culture as the French, within our borders. He seemed to fear the "diversity" it would bring.

"There is here some person, a Frenchman from Philadelphia (perhaps Perée) who has drawn up a visionary scheme of a settlement of French emigrants, 500 in number on the Ohio.... My opinion has been asked, and I have given it, that Congress will make bargains with nobody, that they will lay down general rules, to which all applicants must conform themselves by applying to the proper offices a...and that therefore I did not think they would encourage a settlement in so large a body of strangers whose language, manners and principles were so heterogeneous to ours. " LINK

 

[Gdjjr]

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

Entangling Alliances

Alliances, we had always felt, were not our sort of thing. They would involve us in obscure quarrels and sordid rivalries which were none of our concern. They seemed to be both undesirable and unnecessary in view of our special geographic and political circumstances.

www.foreignaffairs.com

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson

• "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." [4]

Simple: The United States should be peaceful and trade with other nations but we should not have allies.

Thomas Jefferson - Wikiquote

simple.wikiquote.org

Foreign relations and free trade
Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations, which he views as foreign entanglements.[9] He advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality. He urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation, arguing that attachments with or animosity toward other nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy. He argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars that have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Alliances, he warns, often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.




Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who will seek to influence the American people and government; nations who may be considered friendly as well as nations considered enemies will equally try to influence the government to do their will. "Real patriots", he warns, who "resist the intrigues" of foreign nations may find themselves "suspected and odious" in the eyes of others, yet he urges the people to stand firm against such influences all the same. He portrays those who attempt to further such foreign interests as becoming the "tools and dupes" of those nations, stealing the applause and praise of their country away from the "real patriots" while actually working to "surrender" American interests to foreign nations.

Washington goes on to urge the American people to take advantage of their isolated position in the world, and to avoid attachments and entanglements in foreign affairs, especially those of Europe, which he argues have little or nothing to do with the interests of America. He argues that it makes no sense for the American people to become embroiled in European affairs when their isolated position and unity allow them to remain neutral and focus on their own affairs. He argues that the country should avoid permanent alliances with all foreign nations, although temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary. He states that current treaties should be honored but not extended.

Washington wraps up his foreign policy stance by advocating free trade with all nations, arguing that trade links should be established naturally and the role of the government should be limited to ensuring stable trade, defending the rights of American merchants and any provisions necessary to ensure the conventional rules of trade.

George Washington's Farewell Address - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[whitehall]

We can envision the future of the USMC by considering the past. A bean counter mid west democrat senator without a college education became president on an April morning in 1945 without lifting a finger. The media legacy for Harry Truman was that he was a feisty little politician but in fact he was a timid vindictive little wimp. After all the Marines sacrificed in "Uncommon Valor" in the Pacific war, President Truman claimed that the Marine Corps "had a better propaganda machine than Stalin" and vowed to reduce the Marine Corps to a ceremonial unit. It's kind of ironic because it was the Marines that saved Truman's ass in the quagmire of Korea. It's interesting that the post is based on an editorial in WAPO which is based on the opinion of the Communist Chinese regime. It's ironic that democrats accused President Trump of "collusion" with Russia while the democrats and the entire left wing media have been agents of foreign propaganda for the last 20 years.

 

[22lcidw]

Did SEATO get us into two wars in Asia? Grumblings with Korea. Outright a vicious division of internal opinion with Viet Nam. The end of the draft comforted many people as the volunteer service put the onus on those serving. But it still left the door open to many wars. It has become tiresome. Tiresome and expensive.

 

[Mushroom]

After all the Marines sacrificed in "Uncommon Valor" in the Pacific war, President Truman claimed that the Marine Corps "had a better propaganda machine than Stalin" and vowed to reduce the Marine Corps to a ceremonial unit.

And to be fair, that is largely what the Marine Corps was prior to WWII.

A small number that were stationed on board ships, and more who were largely involved in defending Navy bases and our Embassies overseas. It was only after WWII that the Corps grew into what we have today. They would occasionally throw together a battalion together here and a regiment together there, then disband it as soon as the need for them was over.

 

[harmonica]

On September 4, 2002, five months before the invasion of Iraq, this writer warned in an editorial for the Washington Post that “China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall . . . An ‘American war’ with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.”


Eighteen years later we are struggling with the bitter leavings of that unfortunate result. We have spent trillions of dollars from our national treasury on wars and frequently amateurish nation-building projects in the Middle East. We have lost thousands of good people to deaths in combat, and tens of thousands more to wounds and debilitating emotional scars that will stay with them throughout their remaining lives. Our military leaders have conducted numerous fruitless and feckless campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria that, in the end, have only further destabilized one region while decreasing American prestige and influence in another. Our larger foreign policy has degenerated from post–Cold War transitional to post-Iraq situational, without the guiding principles of a clear national doctrine. The leadership in the Department of Defense, both military and civilian, has been reduced to feeling its way from one day to the next, simply reacting to crises large and small rather than guiding the international narrative, which America’s global leadership managed to do even during the most difficult days of the Cold War.

The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps

There is no greater danger in military strategy than shaping a nation’s force structure to respond to one specific set of contingencies, giving an adversary the ability to adjust and adapt beforehand.

nationalinterest.org

That doesn't sound like a smart move.

....your whole OP said nothing about the USMC..you should have stated the principle USMC issues in your OP

...if there is a MAJOR MASSIVE war--guess what? we are going to have to call in the reserves AND a draft --but until then, the US military is '''too massive''.....
..Israel defeated the Arabs who outnumbered them in ALL categories and had huge geographical/terrain advantages ..and they did it with a ''small'' military force reinforced with reserves

Mike Tyson is an IDIOT and Webb quotes HIM????!!! hahahahahah

..the USMC should keep it's BLTs and MEUs as is ...they are configured for multiple and various contingencies

.....Iraq and Afghanistan was not nation-building as much as DEFENDING the US and its interests
..blah blah blah many issues

...finally, a good military can accomplish its missions if it is motivated, well trained, disciplined, etc ....I think Mr Webb is overthinking it

I am an 8 year USMC Vet