Re: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel

[Marc James Small <msmall@infi.net>]

At 11:13 PM 10/31/02 EST, SDonell73@aol.com wrote:
>I find little in these discussions that address the issue of the planned
>extinction of the Marine Corps by the Truman administration, as egged on by
>virtually every senior Army officer, and most if not all Air Force
>officers, who not only wanted the Marine Corps disbanded, but wanted Marine
>aviation assets to come under their control. 
>That fight has continued to this date more than 50 years after its
inception. 
> 
>It's curious that MacArthur, no friend to the Marines, was the one Army
>general who was enthusiastic about using them in his plan for an amphibian
>invasion to break the back of the North Korean Army which was about to push
>the Americans and a few allied forces off the Korean peninsula. He was the
>only one who appreciated the value of amphibious operations, obviously.  
> 
>Ike had been quoted as saying that it was no big deal. And Bradley, the
>Soldier's Soldier, commented that in the post WWII period there would never
>be another need for an amphibious invasion. It doesn't say much for
>America's military leadership at that time. 

Excellent points, Sandy.

But most Army folks didn't advocate eliminating the Marine Corps;  the
argument was over the role of the Marine Corps.  The Army -- and Navy, for
that matter -- wished to see the Marine Corps returned to their Prewar size
and mission, while the Marine Corps, with support from the Air Force,
fought to have an expanded mission and size.  The issue was not resolved
until it was decided, around 1959, to give the Marines the sole mission for
amphibious warfare and embassy guard duty, and that uneasy structure has
continued to this day.

Neither Eisenhower nor Bradley spoke for the Army as a whole, though both
were respected senior officers.  More interesting is that the only senior
Army officer to have commanded Marines directly, Sandy Patch, did call for
the elimination of the Marine Corps, though this might have been in jest.
(He died almost immediately thereafter, so we shall never know.)  

In the end, the argument was whether the Marines should be permitted to
maintain organizations larger than Regiments in a peacetime environment,
and, again, in the end, it was decided to permit this, so that the Marines
would be capaable of conducting amphibious landings.  (Though, to be fair,
the Army continues to study the issue doctrinally, in case another DOWNFALL
or OVERLORD should confront the US.)  And it should be noted that this
decision was made under the Eisenhower Administration;  when Kennedy came
in, his SecDef, MacNamara, wanted to pare the Corps all over again, though
the growth of the Viet-Nam conflict mitigated against this.

In the end, the current Marine Corps is approximately half the size of the
Army, and I don't expect this to change in my lifetime.

Marc

msmall@infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!