Friday, March 10, 2017
Do we still need Marines?
Do we still need Marines? Don't mistake this question for some leftists' including left-libetarians' anti-authority (daddy issues) thus anti-military kick. Being pro-military doesn't mean you think the military is infallible or above criticism. (My brown leather jacket is regulation Navy/Marine.) It's not a religion. Some say the Marines are a religion as well as a huge self-promoter. Anyway, in Base Nation, David Vine's liberal exposé (risking national security?) on the real problems of too many overseas U.S. military bases and a self-serving/self-perpetuating military-industrial complex, he brings up the old (since armed-forces unification at the top, what's now the Defense Department) question of whether we still need the Corps. We should have stayed out of World War II (let the Soviets, the real threat, and the Nazis destroy each other and make a deal with Japan) but we didn't use Marines at Normandy. The services cooperate much more now, and Vine makes the point against an empire of bases that with modern travel we can send ordinary troops from the U.S. to hot spots in enough time. So do we still need a small (1/8 the Army's size by law?) seagoing army integrated with the Navy (speaking Navy lingo) for amphibious landings, which we rarely do now? We haven't used the Marines as marines since Inchon in 1950. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (Iraq's an immoral war) they have been used exactly like the Army. I understand to the Corps' credit it is the service that the Sixties revolution has affected least, still more interested in winning fights than political correctness; its machismo is why it usually meets its recruiting goals with young malleable men setting out to prove themselves. But as a creature entirely of the government, although military and conservative values work well together, the U.S. military is not conservative.