Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Teufel, post: 601584, member: 182"]
It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

How many letters are in "ShadowSpear?"