The Few, The Proud, The Savvy

Semper Fi Devil Dogs,

They Marine Corps has always had to do more with less.

As a Marine, I'm not going to address the bravery comment, anybody getting shot at is going to be brave or die.

The Corps has a very different mission than the Army, amphibious warfare requires a much different mindset.

First, we train to be outnumbered, conducting an amphibious landing we rarely would have the prescribed 3 to 1 advantage.

Second, we must be light and fast, that removes big heavy tanks from the arsenal, a Marine Expeditionary Unit will have a platoon (4) of tanks. Also, we generally don't take much artillery either, the 155mm cannons that the Corps has are towed not self propelled.

Third, we are shock troops, small in number and requiring supporting arms to get the job done.

Since the debacle at Wake Island during WWII, the Marine Corps will never depend on the other services for support. We have our own air force and will take care of our own.

That kinda explains our bravado. We have nothing against the Army, I personally think they are a fine fighting force, but they are not Marines, and we like it that way.

I'm sorry, but clearly this article needs a comment from a former Soldier. This article does nothing but prove conclusively that the marines truly do have a better PR arm than the Army.

How dare you suggest that one service is "braver" than another? Is my tour in Iraq less meaningful than some marine's? Are my valor decorations less meaningful because I wore the wrong uniform? Did the marines' casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly surpass the Army's in the last few days? Who lost Anbar? The marine corps. Who won it back? The Army. Who got to Baghdad first in 2003? The Army.

Is either author a combat veteran? Is there some other qualification that would justify the meaningless assertion that the marines are "arguably braver?" For shame.

I'd prefer a public apology in print rather than a comment on this thread.

Sincerely,
Richard W. Smith
West Point Class of 1996
Operation Iraqi Freedom 2003-2004

Obama Admin: Will Increase Defense Spending, Not Decrease Defense Spending

???Many Americans believe that Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress will lower defense spending and restrain the militaristic foreign policy it underwrites. The coming years should destroy that myth.??? -- Benjamin H. Friedman, Cato Institute
--------------

Near Term Spike....

As Washington refocuses its attention from fighting in Iraq to stabilizing Afghanistan, military budget experts expect overall warfighting costs will decrease over time. But baseline spending--money used to pay for standard Pentagon operations--is almost certain to go up in the near term. As costs associated with repairing the force after seven years of war remain high, many analysts say baseline dollars will increase slightly in FY2010 to keep pace.

The budget unveiled by Secretary Gates represents a [[$20 Billion Increase over 2009]] (WashPost). Stanley Collender, a veteran budget analyst with Qorvis Communications in Washington, told reporters on February 12 that given the military's current warfighting needs, it's unlikely Congress will be willing to shave the military budget down from this projected level.

The killing class has faired very well thank you:

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/too-big-to-stop-killing-war-class.html

It is no secret why:

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/common-sense-about-state-secrets.html

You guys ever hear of Somalia or any of a number of potential problems that are located along the edge of the worlds oceans? Why do you think that Gates has preserved the smaller Littoral Combat Ship while seeking to kill off the (more expensive) DDG1000 Destroyer? Because the problems that Gates foresees are the smaller contingencies rather than a superpower fight to the death. We can only pray that he is right on that one: it's a big ocean out there so we may yet rue the day that the count is 273 versus 600 ships. The EFV, if you're computer game minds have allowed you to concentrate this long, is the means to bring Marines to the beach to accomplish that mission. Little things like rescuing hostages maybe or eliminating some group planning to put a dirty bomb in Manhattan that would spoil your afternoon latte there at the editorial offices. So grow up a little, work harder at journalism rather than simply expounding a cheeky point of view that doesn't scratch the surface of the truth and join the rest of us who worry about preserving our way of life without daily fear. Put that in your latte and stir it.

Aav's were not taken out of combat in Iraq. My son was an amtrc crew chief his two tours. His tours of duty included the initial invasion and the battle of Fallajah in November 2004.His trac was hit by small arms up to.50 caliber,other tracs in his unit sustained rpg hits and ied blasts. The corps needs a newer more capable vehicle but the old aav is not as hapless as the author opines!

Gates proved to be an invaluable Obama recruit from his initial thrust of bi-partisanship. He had stymied by the non-analytic Bush and the neo-con cabal of Cheney and Condee and can now put in intellectual imprint in the future of country's defense in line with the visionary outlook of the new administration.

The Marines deserve to escape major slashes. They have always been on the short end of funding.
As a minor player in assisting some Marine Corps programs, I have always been impressed at their efficient use of the funds at their disposal.